Bitcoin Scalability: Why the Argument Against Self-Custody is Flawed
In the world of Bitcoin, the debate around scalability is a hot topic. One common argument against pushing for greater scalability is the belief that most people won’t self-custody their own coins anyway, so why bother? But this argument is flawed in several ways.
First and foremost, assuming that the current state of affairs will remain the same in the future is a dangerous logical fallacy. Just because most people are not currently self-custodying their coins does not mean that they won’t in the future. The digital age we live in is constantly evolving, and the tools and technologies available for self-custody are also advancing rapidly.
Many people who are not self-custodying their coins right now simply do not understand the distinction between self-custody and keeping their coins on an exchange like Coinbase. To them, it’s all just apps that hold their bitcoin. This lack of awareness should not be used as a reason to discount the importance of scalability.
Furthermore, the fear of losing keys is a major reason why some users choose not to self-custody. But key management schemes have come a long way since the early days of Bitcoin. Mnemonic seeds, multisignature wallets, and other tools make self-custodying much more secure and user-friendly than ever before.
Companies like Unchained, Casa, Nunchuck, and Bitkey are leading the way in developing user-friendly self-custody solutions. With advancements like Schnorr and Taproot, these tools are becoming even more secure and easy to use. Taproot, for example, allows users to delegate emergency recovery keys to friends or family members without compromising the security of their coins.
In conclusion, the argument against scalability based on the assumption that most people won’t self-custody is flawed and arrogant. The world is constantly changing, and attitudes towards self-custody will evolve alongside advancements in technology. Discounting the need for scalability because of current behaviors is short-sighted and ultimately harmful to the future of Bitcoin.
This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are entirely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.