The stereotype of naive dreamers and idealists versus cold, hard realists and cynics holds some truth. Stereotypes don’t emerge without reason; they contain a kernel of truth that allows them to spread widely. However, these stereotypes and the worldviews they represent are often exaggerated. Currently, Bitcoin finds itself in a tug-of-war between idealists and cynics.
On one side, idealists claim victory, asserting that Bitcoin’s success is inevitable and that no further action is required. They believe it will dominate the world, with everyone owning it, and that it is the ultimate store of value—no improvements necessary. Conversely, cynics argue that Bitcoin has already failed or is on the verge of failure. They contend that without a significant overhaul, Bitcoin cannot succeed and will become obsolete. When asked about necessary improvements, the response is often, “Who knows where to start?”
This polarized debate distracts from two crucial aspects: the potential of what can already be achieved with the current system and how even minor improvements could significantly enhance that potential. Presently, Bitcoin’s ability to provide censorship resistance and privacy for a large portion of the world relies on custodians. The best approach involves numerous small, local Chaumian ecash mints, which require operating a Lightning node.
However, Lightning is complex, and mistakes can lead to losing all funds. The current design allows a counterparty to steal funds if an outdated channel state is used after an update. Implementing CTV + CSFS would introduce LN-Symmetry, a new type of Lightning channel that allows for a more efficient way to manage channels. Instead of relying on an old state that could result in loss, LN-Symmetry channels would enable parties to “cut through” intermediary states and spend from the old state to the most recent one on-chain, ensuring accurate fund distribution.
This single improvement (among many that CTV + CSFS could facilitate) would significantly alter the landscape for those willing to run local ecash mints, as the risk of losing funds due to errors would be greatly reduced. This enhancement would substantially bolster Bitcoin’s privacy and censorship resistance. While it may not achieve global self-custody, it would undeniably enhance Bitcoin’s value, countering the claims of store of value maximalists who argue that no improvements are necessary or feasible.
Bitcoin enthusiasts should shift their focus away from the extremes and explore the vast, largely uncharted territory that exists between these viewpoints.
