# Bitcoin can’t scale! Let me start by saying, I love Bitcoin. I mean, who doesn’t love the idea of digital money that’s decentralized, censorship-resistant, and run by math geeks instead of banks? But, like many things you love, it didn’t take long before I found out it wasn’t perfect. As I got deeper into Bitcoin, I hit a major snag—it couldn’t scale. And when you realize something you love has a flaw, it’s like finding out your favorite superhero can’t fly. Sure, they can still save the day, but now you’ve got to rethink how they do it. ### The Bitcoin Cash Detour: Bigger Isn’t Always Better At this point, I was looking for answers, and that’s when Bitcoin Cash came along. It promised to solve Bitcoin’s problems by increasing the block size—more transactions, faster processing. Seemed like a no-brainer, right? It’s like upgrading your car’s engine so you can go faster. I thought, “Hey, maybe this is the right path!” So, I hopped on the Bitcoin Cash bandwagon for a bit. But, as with any quick fix, the cracks started to show. You know that moment when you upgrade to a bigger smartphone, and suddenly it doesn’t fit in your pocket? That’s what Bitcoin Cash felt like. The bigger blocks meant more data, and more data meant it was harder for regular folks to run their own nodes. Suddenly, this thing that was supposed to be all about decentralization started leaning towards centralization—big players with big resources running the show. Not exactly the decentralized dream I signed up for. So, reluctantly, I realized that while Bitcoin Cash had its merits, it wasn’t the answer. ### Back to Bitcoin: Enter the Lightning Network Returning to Bitcoin, I was still on the hunt for that elusive solution. That’s when I discovered the Lightning Network, and man, did it seem like the perfect answer. It promised instant, nearly fee-less transactions by taking most of the transactions off-chain. It was like finding a secret passage in a video game that lets you skip all the hard levels. I was stoked. But, as anyone who’s ever tried to navigate a secret passage knows, it’s not always smooth sailing. The Lightning Network came with its own set of challenges—liquidity problems being the biggest one. Managing liquidity channels was like trying to keep a bunch of spinning plates in the air. If you got it wrong, you were either stuck or ended up relying on big players to keep things running smoothly. And just like that, the centralization monster reared its head again. Lightning was cool, but the more I dug into it, the more I realized it wasn’t the silver bullet I was hoping for. ### The Liquid Network: The Forgotten Solution By now, I was feeling a bit like Goldilocks—one solution was too big, another was too complicated, and I was still searching for the one that was just right. That’s when I remembered something from my early Bitcoin days: the Liquid Network. I’d played around with it briefly before dismissing it as just another sidechain experiment. But hey, I was out of options, so I figured, why not give it another look? And that’s when it hit me. The Liquid Network was like that old friend you haven’t talked to in years but who suddenly shows up at the exact right time with exactly what you need. Liquid wasn’t trying to do what Bitcoin or Lightning did—it was doing something entirely different. It’s designed for fast, private transactions between exchanges and big players, without clogging up the Bitcoin base layer. It’s like the express lane at the grocery store—if you’ve got 10 items or less, you zip through without slowing everyone else down. ### The Perfect Three-Legged Stool: Bitcoin, Lightning, and Liquid It was then that I realized something profound. These three technologies—Bitcoin’s base layer, the Lightning Network, and the Liquid Network—weren’t competing solutions; they were complementary. Together, they form a perfect three-legged stool that balances security, scalability, and speed. Here’s the deal: 1. **Bitcoin’s Base Layer**: This is the foundation, the bedrock. It’s decentralized, secure, and slow—but in a good way. It’s like the tortoise in the tortoise and the hare story. Sure, it’s not winning any speed races, but it’s rock-solid, and you can count on it to get the job done safely. 2. **Lightning Network**: Lightning is the hare—fast and nimble, perfect for quick, small transactions. But like the hare, it has its vulnerabilities. Managing liquidity is tricky, and it can start to centralize if you’re not careful. But it’s still an essential part of the ecosystem, allowing you to buy your morning coffee without waiting 10 minutes for a confirmation. 3. **Liquid Network**: Liquid is the middle ground, the express lane for bigger transactions. It’s private, fast, and doesn’t burden the Bitcoin base layer. It’s not as decentralized as Bitcoin, but it doesn’t need to be. It’s like the specialized tool in your toolbox—it’s not for every job, but when you need it, nothing else will do. Together, these three form a system that’s resilient, adaptable, and, most importantly, decentralized where it counts. Bitcoin’s base layer remains secure and untouchable, Lightning handles the day-to-day transactions, and Liquid takes care of the big movers and shakers without compromising the core network. ### Conclusion: The Journey Was Worth It Looking back, I’m glad I took the detour through Bitcoin Cash and struggled with Lightning’s complexities. Those experiences taught me the importance of trade-offs in technology, and that no single solution can do it all. But together, Bitcoin, Lightning, and Liquid create a robust system that’s ready to scale, ready to innovate, and ready to meet the needs of users worldwide. So, here I am, a bit older, a bit wiser, and a lot more confident in Bitcoin’s future. I’ve found my perfect three-legged stool, and it’s holding up just fine.

Question… I apologize if this topic is a bit controversial. To scale Bitcoin to support micro transactions, do you think that there must be a trusted third party at some level?

The Allure of Fame vs. the Power of Ideas I’ve often found myself scrolling through social media, whether it’s YouTube, Twitter, or some other platform, and feeling a pang of jealousy. Watching others bask in the glow of fame, with hundreds, thousands, or even millions of eyes on them, it’s hard not to want a piece of that. Their ideas are so well-articulated, their thoughts so thought-provoking, that part of me can’t help but wish I were in their shoes. But then I take a step back and realize that craving fame is not the right motivation. Most of the people who achieve that level of recognition do so not because they chased popularity, but because they had something valuable to say. Their ideas, perspectives, and the way they connect with others are what draw people to them—not a desire to be famous. It’s tempting to believe that gaining a following on social media is the ultimate goal. The allure of fame is powerful, and I can’t deny that it has its pull. But I also know that this isn’t something I should aspire to. The drive to create should come from the strength of the ideas themselves, not from a desire to be recognized. This is something I struggle with. Even if I could come up with great ideas, strong arguments, and genuine thoughts and feelings on a topic, would I be able to remain consistent like those who have succeeded? The people who become known for their content are not only brilliant—they are also incredibly consistent in articulating their ideas. It’s a difficult journey, and if you’re not willing to recognize how much harder it is than it appears, you might want to reconsider. Ultimately, I’m beginning to understand that the true reward lies in the strength of the ideas we share, not in the number of people who notice them. If I can focus on that, the rest will follow naturally, or perhaps not at all—and that’s okay too.