If only.

No the reason to leave bitcoin 'unsecured' as you put it is because there is no credible threat from quantum at all. When (if) quantum ever produces any kind of practical useful result coupled with any kind of evidence of scalability then perhaps we should start worrying about what compromises we need to make bitcoin. While state of the art quantum can't even factor the number 21 without knowing the answer first I don't think we have any reason to worry.

I'm a big fan of self custody but it's delusional to think that bitcoin can reach millions per coin without the kind of fiat bridges that Saylor has built . All he is doing is funneling fiat into BTC. It's magical thinking to believe grass roots adoption alone will get bitcoin to where you expect it to be.

But all of those use cases would be better served by centralised systems. There is no technical reason that clearing in centralised systems needs to take a long time, it's just antquited systems and processes that the parties involved have little incentive to change. Tokens for ownership of assets still relys on a legal framework to actually enforce so might as well be centralised. Imagine if tokens conferring ownership of a house were hacked/stolen, you think there would be no legal recourse to recover and reverse the transaction? If there is then that's a centralised system and makes blockchain pointless.

Why would a stock exchange need (or want) to be decentralised? Blockchain is not a good solution for anything unless you really, really need decentralisation. It's inefficient and slow. The only use case so far that requires decentralisation and is worth all the trade offs is an alternative to central bank controlled money.

Dudes been watching far too much x-files.

Wait hold on, bitcoin is money now?

I thought bitcoin was an arbitrary data exchange mechanism?

There is a difference between policing the data and welcoming spammers by:

- providing official' support for large quantities of spam.
- refusing to fix the bug which enabled inscriptions

No one is claiming all spam can be stopped but deliberately removing friction for spammers is not a good idea for the long term health of the network. If spammers know that the network is hostile to them and there is a chance they will get rugged at some point in the future then that's a huge deterrent to VCs funding large scale spammers.

Custom build running start9 on proxmox. Hardware wallets. Bitaxe mining and building my own blocks with Datum, signalling BIP110 of course.

'Iranian media reports'...

The first casualty of war is truth.

There is no gradient. It's either a financial transaction that uses the monetary network as it was designed to be used, or it's spam. You can't stop all spam but that doesn't mean you have to make the network spam friendly.

The whole point of bitcoin is that it is a monetary network outside the control of central banks and governments. If you believe that's a good thing then you have to accept that it will be used by people you don't like.