Base-Layer Scaling And Practical Capacity Limits
Sources: 1 • Confidence: Low • Updated: 2026-02-06 16:59
Key takeaways
- The Host asserts that Bitcoin has a maximum practical capacity that limits how many people can use it simultaneously.
- John Carvalho asserts that adding soft forks and new features to Bitcoin increasingly does not make sense.
Sections
Base-Layer Scaling And Practical Capacity Limits
The corpus introduces the idea that base-layer usage is bounded by a practical concurrency/capacity ceiling, implying that growth in users attempting direct on-chain usage could express as congestion and/or higher fees rather than linear scaling of throughput. The corpus does not provide numbers, a specific bottleneck model, or empirical confirmation criteria beyond generic monitoring.
- The Host asserts that Bitcoin has a maximum practical capacity that limits how many people can use it simultaneously.
Protocol Governance Posture: Feature-Add Skepticism And Ossification Tendency
The corpus records a viewpoint that continued addition of soft-fork features is increasingly unjustified. This points to an attitude favoring fewer protocol changes over time, but the corpus does not specify the underlying rationale (e.g., security, governance, or centralization tradeoffs) or any concrete disputes over particular proposals.
- John Carvalho asserts that adding soft forks and new features to Bitcoin increasingly does not make sense.
Unknowns
- What specific definition of 'maximum practical capacity' is being used (transactions per block, sustained throughput, number of unique users, settlement frequency), and what bottleneck is claimed to set it?
- What empirical indicators and thresholds would constitute confirming or falsifying the practical-capacity claim (e.g., sustained mempool conditions, fee regimes, confirmation delays) under increasing demand?
- What are John Carvalho's explicit reasons for concluding that adding soft forks/new features increasingly does not make sense, and what tradeoffs does he prioritize?
- Is there any direct decision-readthrough (operator, product, investor) intended by either speaker beyond general posture statements?