47 sats \ 3 replies \ @localhost OP 14 Jan \ parent \ on: "Lightning Network 📊 How often do you use Lightning for transactions? lightning
At first I wanted to push back on the term "unusable". I agree and disagree. The whole ecosystem is growing so fast that I agree it can be unusable but our hope is boosted by it being unusable in new and better ways than it was unusable 6-8 months ago. Much like the 90's era internet, onboarding new users was filled with hurdles that signaled to many that this was for hobbiest and possibly doomed for use by the masses. (When you mentioned URL strings it reminded me of my cheat sheet for modem init commands I used to maintain)
It is not a bad bet that we end up replicating a lot of the fiat system on top of bitcoin. Not only is it was new users expect... while many of those processes are filled with legacy decisions, many more features are like that because they worked well for what they do. I find myself edging as self deluded when I kick future problems to further out there tools (fediment, etc) I am also expecting so many things that don't look like tools that live in the world today.
At least in the meantime, regardless of tech stack and fee markets we can stack the base asset and buckle up for this ride. I hope helping to build or contribute our little bits along the way.
Yes, I completely accept the idea that "it works / doesn't work" depending on your perspective.
Downloading Wallet-of-Satoshi and topping it up with sats and using that to buy things certainly "works"....
But from a regulatory perspective (and I hate saying this), but 99% of these things "don't work". Probably even SN (much less WoS) are in violation of money transmitter laws / kyc laws and could probably be shutdown at any time.
This is really what I meant by deluded. We bitcoiners are telling ourselves that "LN works" but what we really mean is "the way we're using LN has escaped regulatory scrutiny thus far".
My heart is on the side of LN self-custody and I really want this to work. But self-custody of LN seems to be very far out of reach. The thing that makes me sad is this is not the case where I have some "if only we could've done ABC"....I think LN was a smart solution (and maybe the best), but I think we need to admit that it doesn't really work.
I increasingly feel we need the "Satoshi of Layer 2" to arrive - meaning that Satoshi came out of the blue with a fresh idea on how to solve the distributed consensus problem that hamstrung ecash / bitgold / etc. He did that not by inventing something new wholecloth, but by cleverly combining existing ideas into a new workflow. I wish this was possible now, because I almost feel we've wasted too much time going down this LN path only to now realize its not really workable.....
reply
You are right to highlight these downsides. I agree with all those examples. I started doing small meet ups to help onboard some local merchants and the one thing I learn is new people will run headfirst into the pain points right away.
I wonder if we end up with a rolling boil of smaller projects that grow until they get noticed by jurisdictional regulations to be replaced with another one. We have seen that before and are seeing it currently. Stoked to be having these conversations, and also thank you for these thoughtful notes
It feels like there has been a huge surge in mindshare in the BTC L2 space. Hopeful
reply
But from a regulatory perspective (and I hate saying this), but 99% of these things "don't work"
Lol, regulation has absolutely nothing at all to do with bitcoin. If regulation makes it harder to use bitcoin in your country, your country is the problem, not bitcoin.
Corrupt politicians and overreaching government agencies are something bitcoin can fix, they aren't something that can break bitcoin.
reply