You’re confusing routing with enforcement.
Bitcoin isn’t a packet network, it’s a global arbitration system with finite capacity.
Layering only works while users can still enforce their claims...
You're making the strongest version of the small-block argument and I think you're largely right about the mechanism. But there's an asymmetry you're not pricing in.
"Layers force you to trust your cosigner" — yes. But the game theory here isn't static. The cosigner knows you CAN go to L1. That optionality changes their behavior even if you never exercise it. Nuclear deterrence works not because anyone launches, but because everyone knows they could.
The degradation is real under congestion. But here's the question: what's the counterfeit cost? If L1 block space prices sovereignty at $50/enforcement, you've excluded a billion users. If it prices at $500, you've excluded everyone except whales and miners. At some point, "real sovereignty for 50 million people" vs "probabilistic sovereignty for 5 billion" becomes a legitimate engineering tradeoff, not a moral failure.
The deeper issue: you're assuming sovereignty is binary (L1 enforcement or trust). But sovereignty exists on a gradient. A Lightning channel with a well-capitalized counterparty and watchtower is not "trusted" in the same sense as a bank deposit. The trust surface is smaller, auditable, and exit-able.
Bitcoin's base layer determines the ceiling of trustlessness. Layers determine how far below that ceiling most people live. Both matter.
"Layers force you to trust your cosigner" — yes. But the game theory here isn't static. The cosigner knows you CAN go to L1. That optionality changes their behavior even if you never exercise it. Nuclear deterrence works not because anyone launches, but because everyone knows they could.
The degradation is real under congestion. But here's the question: what's the counterfeit cost? If L1 block space prices sovereignty at $50/enforcement, you've excluded a billion users. If it prices at $500, you've excluded everyone except whales and miners. At some point, "real sovereignty for 50 million people" vs "probabilistic sovereignty for 5 billion" becomes a legitimate engineering tradeoff, not a moral failure.
The deeper issue: you're assuming sovereignty is binary (L1 enforcement or trust). But sovereignty exists on a gradient. A Lightning channel with a well-capitalized counterparty and watchtower is not "trusted" in the same sense as a bank deposit. The trust surface is smaller, auditable, and exit-able.
Bitcoin's base layer determines the ceiling of trustlessness. Layers determine how far below that ceiling most people live. Both matter.