Triggering Thought, Not Tribalism: Questions That Bitcoin Maxis Can’t Ignore
This isn’t about winning arguments. It’s about exposing blind spots, surfacing contradictions, and letting the audience see what the protocol can’t admit. Ask gently, but aim precisely.
The goal is to aim for Socratic questions that poke at Bitcoin’s assumptions without turning into direct attacks. The idea is to get Bitcoiners thinking out loud rather than digging in defensively. I hope you’re considerate and careful with these questions as they may cause cognitive dissonance (discomfort) in closed minded Bitcoin maxi’s. That just means their beliefs about Bitcoin may not line up with reality.
It could just be a misconception but often its deeper than that and instilled as a belief. Either way, expect them to potentially lash out at first, but if you’re polite and inquisitive you might be able to get them to see the light. If not then maybe you ‘dug a hole’ and the next person will be able to ‘plant a seed’ that eventually ‘grows’ into a Kaspa bag lol. Don’t forget: most of the time there are other people that are silently viewing/listening in on the debate and you might be able to persuade them.
Questions to Ask a Bitcoiner:
Security
Why does Bitcoin’s network require a straight-line increase in hash-power to boost security, whereas Kaspa’s DAG architecture uses additional EH/s more efficiently than Bitcoin’s linear base-layer model?
Why does Bitcoin require ever-increasing energy for linear security gains, when DAG-based systems like Kaspa achieve more efficient security per watt?
If Bitcoin’s security depends on price to sustain hashpower, how resilient is that model compared to architectures where each watt yields compounding security gains?
If finality in Bitcoin depends on waiting multiple 10-minute blocks, how can it ever be competitive for real-time settlement?
Since Bitcoin security diminishes predictably with halvings, isn’t it locked into a timeline where incentives decline no matter what?
Scaling
Can Bitcoin scale horizontally? Why or why not?
What challenges does Bitcoin face when it comes to scaling?
If Bitcoin can’t handle the next billion users on-chain, won’t that force people onto custodial layers that reintroduce trust?
Lightning aims to scale Bitcoin, but how can it achieve mass adoption given challenges like liquidity management, routing failures, and capital lockup?
If newer blockchains achieve global-scale throughput while remaining decentralized, why should the world settle for Bitcoin’s limited capacity?
If every scaling attempt (SegWit, Lightning, side chains) still relies on Bitcoin’s slow base layer, doesn’t that impose a ceiling Lightning can’t escape?
Bitcoin is designed for ~7 tps. Even with perfect Lightning adoption, won’t the base layer remain a bottleneck for global scale?
Why hasn’t Bitcoin been able to increase throughput without sparking civil wars (Block size Wars)?
Fees
What is a fee market and why is Bitcoin’s ‘always on’ by default?
If Bitcoin fees rise too high during congestion, users are priced out. If fees stay low, miners won’t be paid enough after halvings. How can Bitcoin balance this paradox?
By 2036, block rewards will be minimal; what happens if Bitcoin’s price growth doesn’t match the level some analyses suggest is necessary to sustain security?
How will the miners afford to sustain the network if fees are moved from Bitcoin to Lightning?
Bitcoin’s fee model assumes scarcity = value. But if users choose abundant-throughput chains, doesn’t that assumption collapse?
Why should ordinary users compete with institutions in a permanent fee auction, instead of having abundant block-space like in Kaspa?
Is it realistic to assume Bitcoin will maintain security if fees must rise indefinitely while users demand cheaper alternatives?
If large institutions dominate fees and custody, how might that affect Bitcoin’s peer-to-peer ethos?
Governance
How likely is it for Bitcoin to change its core social contract and can Bitcoin maintain sufficient miner incentives under its current social contract, or is a protocol-level change inevitable?
If Bitcoin ever needed a fundamental change (e.g., block size, emission curve tweak, fee structure), is it even possible socially? What happens if it can’t adapt?
What is a Schelling point and a network/Lindy effect? If the next billion users in crypto ended up being AI agents, how do we know they wont gravitate towards their own Schelling points?
If Bitcoin governance is essentially “frozen,” is that resilience — or an inability to evolve?
Do you think ossification is a strength or a weakness in a world of accelerating technological progress?
Was Bitcoin ‘better’ when Satoshi was around? Do you think he would have steered it to prevent these limitations and kept it on track to its original vision as p2p electronic cash?
Why did a relatively minor scaling debate (block size) almost split Bitcoin permanently; what would happen with a real existential change?
If governance is effectively frozen, doesn’t that make Bitcoin fragile to new environments or threats?
Why must Bitcoin cling to a monetary policy that makes miner incentives steadily decline, even if better models exist?
If Bitcoin’s core social contract can’t evolve, isn’t its long-term survival entirely dependent on inertia rather than adaptability?
General
What if another reflexive-rotation happened with all-around superior tech that shares the same ethos to Bitcoin? (Similar to when Ethereum surged to 32% dominance.)
If there were a reflexive-rotation from Bitcoin to Kaspa, do you think it would be slow or fast?
If miners earn more profit from energy arbitrage and MEV on other networks, what keeps them loyal to Bitcoin?
If Kaspa or another network can do what Bitcoin does plus high throughput and instant confirmations — at no tradeoff to decentralization — what remains as Bitcoin’s irreplaceable edge?
Some argue MoE must come before SoV. If that’s true, did Bitcoin skip a necessary step?”
If Kaspa can offer instant confirmations and abundant blocks-pace without sacrificing decentralization, what remains Bitcoin’s unique edge?
Bitcoin has already ceded the “peer-to-peer cash” role to faster chains. Is “digital gold” the only narrative left?
If the next billion users are AI agents requiring instant, high-throughput settlement, how could Bitcoin realistically serve them?
Bitcoin depends on being the Schelling point today, but what if superior tech with the same ethos becomes the new Schelling point?
Isn’t Bitcoin’s main moat cultural rather than technical and can culture hold if incentives and usability degrade?
Answers
Security
Bitcoin’s hashpower grows linearly, so more energy yields roughly proportional security. Kaspa’s DAG parallelism makes each additional EH/s more efficiently secured.
Bitcoin’s model provides diminishing marginal returns, while Kaspa’s DAG extracts more security per watt.
Bitcoin’s model is circular: it needs price to rise for security, and security for price to rise. If that loop breaks, confidence collapses.
Ten-minute blocks mean confirmations take an hour to feel final. Protocols with faster, probabilistic finality give usable real-time settlement.
Halvings reduce rewards on a fixed timeline. That guarantees declining incentives, no matter the demand side.
Scaling
Bitcoin can’t scale horizontally since all transactions must funnel through the base chain. Kaspa parallelizes blocks for throughput growth.
Bitcoin’s scaling attempts always clash with decentralization and political consensus. The protocol can’t expand capacity without internal wars.
If Bitcoin can’t handle users on-chain, they must rely on custodians. That reintroduces trust Bitcoin was meant to remove.
Lightning faces limitations in routing, liquidity, and capital lockup, which could slow broad adoption.
Protocols with abundant decentralized throughput show scaling doesn’t require compromise. Bitcoin’s cap locks it into permanent scarcity.
Every scaling solution inherits the slow base layer. Lightning can’t leap past its foundation.
~7 tps means global scale is impossible. Even with perfect Lightning, the bottleneck stays.
The block size wars proved throughput debates tear Bitcoin apart. Bigger changes would be even more destabilizing.
Fees
Bitcoin’s fee market is ‘always on’ with the intensity depending on congestion because block-space is scarce by design. That means permanent bidding wars.
If fees spike, users leave; if they drop, miners starve. The system has no stable equilibrium.
Miner revenues from block rewards decline predictably, so sustaining security depends on price growth. Some analyses suggest BTC may need to reach high six-figure levels to maintain today’s incentives (Alden, 2023).”
Lightning shifts transactions off-chain. That reduces fees going to miners, weakening base-layer security.
Scarcity-based fee models assume users tolerate auctions. But if they can transact cheaply elsewhere, they won’t.
Competing with institutions for fees undermines accessibility. Abundant blockspace avoids that tension.
Rising fees may protect miners but repel users. Cheap alternatives will always exist.
If institutions dominate fees, Bitcoin shifts toward custodial settlement. That erodes peer-to-peer ideals.
Governance
Bitcoin’s ossified rules lock in declining rewards. Without flexibility, incentive collapse seems inevitable.
Social consensus makes upgrades nearly impossible. If change is required, the system may freeze.
Schelling points shift with new participants. AI agents may not share today’s human-centric assumptions.
If a protocol can’t evolve without risking collapse, isn’t ossification just fragility dressed up as resilience?
Progress accelerates elsewhere while Bitcoin stands still. In that context, ossification is a weakness.
Bitcoin changed while Satoshi was active. Some argue he might have steered it to preserve peer-to-peer cash.
A small block-size debate nearly split Bitcoin. A bigger issue could trigger existential fracture.
Frozen governance means brittle adaptability. New threats could expose fatal inflexibility.
Declining miner incentives are treated as untouchable dogma. But better models already exist.
If the social contract can’t adapt, survival depends on inertia. That’s not a durable strategy.
General
Reflexive rotations already happened (e.g., Ethereum’s surge). Superior tech could trigger another.
Rotations can move quickly once confidence shifts. Network effects don’t always protect incumbents.
Miners follow profitability. If MEV or arbitrage pay more elsewhere, loyalty fades.
If another network matches Bitcoin’s ethos but adds throughput and speed, Bitcoin loses its moat.
Historically, money needs utility before store-of-value. Bitcoin skipped that step, making its exception questionable.
Kaspa proves instant, abundant, decentralized throughput is possible. Bitcoin’s uniqueness fades under comparison.
Bitcoin already lost the p2p cash use case. “Digital gold” is the only narrative left.
AI agents will demand instant, high-throughput settlement. Bitcoin can’t serve that role.
Schelling points are not permanent. Superior options can shift them.
Bitcoin’s moat is cultural, not technical. If incentives and usability degrade, culture may not hold.
References
Lyn Alden (Bitcoin: Fee-Based Security Modeling) – Analyzes how miner revenue (block reward plus fees) scales with Bitcoin price. Shows that at an average BTC price of $40,000, total miner revenue from block rewards alone is approximately $13 billion annually, with fees on top. This highlights the dependency of Bitcoin’s security budget on price appreciation.
Disclaimer: This article is purely my personal opinion and exercise of free speech. This is unequivocally NOT financial advice, investment advice, OR a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold ANY asset. You are fully responsible for your own financial decisions. Nothing herein guarantees any outcome. Cryptocurrencies are volatile and you can lose your entire investment. Always do your own research before making any investment decisions.