As Bitcoin grows it will require resources beyond the average user to act as a full node. Actually, it did that when it was invented. The average person in the world doesn't even have a computer, let alone a personal internet connection. This leads to the question of who really benefits from Bitcoin? We all do, rich or poor. The greatest objection so far seems to be that as Bitcoin grows it will lead to supernodes and lose its quality of decentralization. These supernodes will act as transaction clearinghouses in the way that banks do now. Now we all now how unfair banks operate, so this must mean that Bitcoin will become as corrupted as the central banks, right? This argument is related to the notion that a 51% attack will threaten the integrity of transactions. Both are real concerns and both have the same solutions, transparency and competition.

I welcome the days when banks again operate under a code of ethics, even if it means they are subject to the same competition in the market all working people experience. Banks will need to compete for bitcoin loans based not only on their lending practices, but also their choices of payment processing rates. Supernodes and banks will compete for exchange rates in diversified investments. The fear that someday one supernode will monopolize the Bitcoin network is as real as gold or any other commodity will be cornered. It is an irrational assumption as all markets operate in complex systems with ever scaling margins of error.

I am less concerned about making Bitcoin more scalable than functional through the theoretical transaction types available because of the crypto baked into the cake. Let's stop worrying about who is going to build the biggest mining rigs. There will always be competition like that. Let's instead focus on making the great big board-game of global commerce fun for everyone.