pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 7 replies \ @random_ 25 Nov \ on: Question: What are the problems with Lightning Again? And Where's Adoption??? bitcoin
Some things I think about often...
Bitcoin is disintermediation technology. Lightning reintroduces dependence on intermediaries.
Lightning does not scale in a high fee environment. The risk of a force closure in a high fee environment makes routing small htlcs uneconomical.
Rene Pickhardt recently showed that in 2-party payment channel networks with asymmetric fees, even if we assume a perfect circular economy, that channel depletion is inevitable.
There is no perfect, trustless technology that has zero chance of failing. It just doesn't exist.
Airplanes have a chance of failing (even if small).
Cars have a chance of breaking down.
And fiat has a... 100% chance of inflating. In fact, even the best fiat has inflated something like 30% over the past 3-4 years.
I'll take my chances with lightning channels. Some custodial, some not it doesn't matter it's a huge improvement imo.
Just to add to this... I've read through the post you linked to as best as I can and it is extremely technical, theoretical, and based off of data of just the last few years. In addition, the commenter there does not agree with the OP from what I can tell.
Maybe lightning will 'work' large-scale long term, maybe it won't. But imo it is by-far the best ethical, proof-of-work scaling solution for the greatest number of people. ****coins don't even have lightning they just have... little to no usage they are not remotely viable.
When people cannot afford 5$ coffees (burnt if you ask me) and 500$ plane tickets then ok lightning is too expensive but that is not the world we live in.
reply
reply
What is your solution, then, for global non-state money?
And I mean that question honestly?
reply
reply
Of course.
And yes Bitcoin+Lightning is far from perfect. It just seems to me to be the best pow offering (pow mandatory) of those reasonably available.
I don't give my pubkey out to strangers. Why should I?
reply