I would love to discuss this more in depth with you, but all you are doing is insult me, so see ya.

Just don't be surprised when people block you on social media, everyone calls you a retard publicly, nobody uses your apps and nobody takes you seriously on Delving Bitcoin.

Have a nice one dude, hope you find the professional help you need for your anger issues someday.

O, let me try to argue with you here, but the level of ad-hominen here demonstrate that this will be hard.

The biggest problem with your approach is believing that people will "just run nodes", people won't, that's a pipedream, people will trust profesionals to run nodes, manage liquidity, keep the software up-to-date, etc, etc... because the division of labour exists, this will ultimately centralize things into very trusted nodes which will act as banks for most people, ending up in the same problem all over again.

As someone who used to work in retail and restaurant management in his 20s, let me tell you, business will NEVER run their own infrastructure, only a few will try to do so and most will either fail at that or export it as a second business, so no, the way you think Lightning will decentralize itself by virtue of people running it won't happen.

What matters really is that those infrastructures are trustless, and Ark tries to do that exactly, be trustless, because decentralization is a means to an end, which is trustlessness, and as long as things are trustless the level of centralization is non-important, while you don't have to trust an ASP, you will always have to trust a Lightinig Custodian, whether that is a giant business or your toxic psychotic cousin who has been caught using the family money to gamble multiple times but is the only one capable of running a node in the family.

That's been the discussion so far, the thing, if I'm not mistaken (BIG IF as I'm no coder) is that recursive covenants are only recursive within themselves, so the worst that can happen is that they eat up the memory of a node trying to validate the whole TX because of the recursive execution of the script, but there's been a lot of FUD around recursive covenants being able to propagate themselves as if Bitcoin was an account model chain and not an UTXO model where only the receiver writes the spending conditions.

When it comes to CTV+CSFS lack of demand's argument, I believe Steven Roose makes the best counter-argument:

Let me try to get this straight, in the same comment you are saying that we shouldn't scale to people but to organizations (which are inherently centralizing btw) and that Ark is a fake scaling application when Ark essentially does what you are claiming is the solution for scaling?

I think I lost braincells just by reading it.

The biggest problem with Peter Todds approach is that he believes in the "If people would just", and no, people won't just.

On the soft-fork thing, you are conflating various things, none of those soft-fork proposal will give us shitcoins on Bitcoin, at max they will be able to prove off-chain shitcoining on Bitcoin, but BitVM is in development, which will also allow for softfork or not, simply more blockspace inefficient than adding the right primitives to Bitcoin Script, so I don't really why people fear this, we all know that shitcoins have no value and even if they come to Bitcoin in a way that's not the already existing one, they will all be worth zero and the worst they will be able to do is take up some blockspace, which they do already.

CTV+CSFS will allow not only Lightning to scale due to Symmetry channels and Ark to become trustless, but also will allow for simple vaults which will reduce the risks of self-custody. Furthermore, there's not a single soft-fork proposal (that's being taken seriously) that changes the security model of Bitcoin, also they are all way less complex are already more scrutinized than Segwit or Taproot ever were.

Changing the LN Address or the email would be the highest thing in my priority list IMO. It amazes me that none of those can be done on Speed.

May I ask why do you believe that adding functionality rugs the devs not using said functionality? I understand most of the reasoning in your comment (although I don't share it at all), but this part really doesn't make any sense to me, it's like saying that updating a library rugs the devs that were using the previous version of the library because they have been building something this far with functionality and optimizations they didn't have before, makes no sense IMO. If anything the devs now have more tools and they could chose to use it or not use it.

I don't worry about things I can't control, now the tricky part is learning to not worry about it.

Company CEO on why people should buy their product and stop criticizing it.

Hey thanks for the comment!

What makes me believe consensus is forming about this is being part of the conversation, not that many people are paying attention to it, since most believe "Bitcoin is unchangeable" so why care about it?

The reason this conversation is happening right now is because most developers I know want LN-Symmetry and other features to help scale Bitcoin off-chain, we already know that Lightning in the state it is today is not enough to scale Bitcoin as it doesn't scale ownership, you can't simply create a Lightning wallet and send money to your grandma as you can on-chain, it all depends of a lot of many factors such as liquidity, on-chain fees, etc... Covenants allow us to remove those limitations by having a lot more design space, they also keep the chain from getting impossibly expensive to use for most folks if we get these things via BitVM or other hacky ways, so yeah, I believe consensus is forming that this might be a need while we are all still against a block size increase.

That one will come with quantum-resistant signatures surely, but not before, before that we need better ways to do the stuff needed to scale Bitcoin.

This is exactly what I said about Linux when I was 15 years old "It's the fault of the user! No way to fix it!" Now we have people using Android, ChromeOS and SteamOS.

Please don't conflate working around limitations with actually understanding what you are using, a LN wallet might be easy to use for you and me, but we are not representative of the users that we all want to join Bitcoin.

Also, it's widely known that Lightning doesn't scale the ownership of Bitcoin, it simply off-loads transactions of already existing users from the chain.

Sentimental retardation is rampant in this comment section.

It's a big improvement for sure, but it won't be even close to realizing Bitcoin's full potential and world changing money.

That isn't Bitcoin's purpose, that's the purpose the goldbugs and the austrian school advocates assigned to it.

Isn't communism exactly the contrary, no ownership rights fot the people and everyone depends on a third party (daddy estate)? This might be the most retarded shit I've read in a while, maybe ever.

So... Exchanges with Lightning support and custodial Lightning wallets... How does that scale censorship resistance and real ownership? How's that different to the banking system we have today?

You don't need to own an UTXO, but you could share an UTXO with a lot of other people, Lightning doesn't allow for that today, Liquid is just an IOU of Bitcoin on a blockchain that's permissioned.

None of these solutions scale ownership of Bitcoin to million of users while keeping the most important properties, but they scale banking on Bitcoin. which defeats the purpose of Bitcoin.

If you believe that Bitcoin we build just to recreate the same system but on a different monetary policy, my man, I have to tell you that you don't understand Bitcoin.

Sorry but it isn't, Bitcoin the asset is, but Bitcoin the asset is not Bitcoin the network, lamentably true Layer 2 that scale ownership are not achievable yet due to Bitcoin's lack of expressivity.

Still sentimental and retarded, I'm being scammed of my time here.

How am I trying to change reality?

Sorry to say it Justin, but this is the most sentimental and retarded shit I've seen you say, and I've seen you see sentimental and retarded shit, but this is something else.

It's like Buttcoin and Bitcoin Maximalisn had a son with internet access.

Consider it whatever you want, but your options are:

I recommend you follow option 3.