1/ Disagree w. @mwilcox.Security is a function of hash rate. When price + fees rise, hash rate follows.Moving activity off chain by definition doesn't reduce security if miner reward increases.What matters most for BTC security is what increases its value most over the long term 
2/ Myopically, adding tx fees will increase reward. But the question is if it comes at the expense of long term larger price / demand gains. What makes BTC valuable? Its use as a censorship resistant & sound money, which stem from trust-minimization and decentralization
3/ The scalability debate was never about TPS, but about decentralization. Touting metcalfe’s law many argue that adding txn’s is unilaterally positive. But unfortunately most on chain TPS increases damage decentralization hindering resilience & ultimately LT price appreciation
4/ What will lead to the highest BTC price and adoption over the long term? First: *Surviving* and Second: Maintaining a strong value prop over our status quo systems. Furthering BTC’s adoption as a sound money will far outweigh the marginal benefits from adding small value txns
5/ The payments that are crowded out are definitionally smaller as they cannot afford the txn fees. Adding these smaller txns to L1 will provide only a marginal benefit to miners while potentially preventing BTC from being adopted for larger txns if it becomes more centralized
6/ Where I agree with @mwilcox is that BTC still needs to accrue other economic value. But I disagree with the insistence that it’s done at L1. Lightning network increases TPS while keeping full node cost low. And @truthcoin drivechains allow opt in experimentation at L2
7/ Many think BTC proponents write off MoE functionality, but this isn't the case. For a sound money to function there still needs to be liquidity. But status quo L1 BTC can fulfill these needs: Under current constraints @saifedean estimates BTC can support 1 CB clearing tx/day
8/ 2 others challenges to doing so at L1: (1) Changes to a complex system lead to unpredictable consequences and (2) Contentious hard forks destroy decentralization. BTC will need to undergo changes, but if the trust model changes, they should be done through consensus soft forks
9/ In fact, the beauty of the market system is that these tests can play out: if on chain capacity was the primary driver for value accrual, LTC, BCH and XLM would all be valued higher than BTC. BCH will codify this dichotomy and value prop in the form of market prices.
10/ In summary: Scaling BTC is about increasing $$ txns per $$ of full node cost. Decentralization is BTC's most important value prop: Don't reduce it for the myopic desire to add txn's at L1.
11/ *We should* still be doing experimentation to bring more value to BTC but at L2. Consistently shocked at how little attention @Truthcoin's drivechain proposal is getting to do so. Good intro below
Excited to see @lightning apps being developed too
Excited to see @lightning apps being developed too
