> It's quicker and easier to set up a reliable Lightning node than it is to sign up for a credit card or bank account.
Except lightning is *not* competing with a bank account or a credit card. You’re competing with XMR, USDT, TRX, SOL, ETH, on-chain BTC payments, BCH, and LTC. And assurances of reliability, for the average business, is higher with those things than with lnd. They don’t require you to setup anything, get liquidity, manage channels, and there’s less attack vector. Hell, for some people it might be as easy as just using a watch wallet and reusing addresses. LN is more complicated and less reliable than this.
> They also make it more reliable since they displace mobile nodes that are toxic to the network and the cause of a significant percentage of failures and costs.
Amen, amen, amen.
Replies (2)
Shitcoins are not the competition because payments are not the use case, settlements are, and shitcoins are fiat.
Shitcoins fail at speed granularity and atomicity as previously discussed. Most also fail at decentralization and trust.
Chain Bitcoin fails at speed granularity and cost.
The actual competition is settlement. Either settle in fiat shitcoins to buy Bitcoin, or just run a fucking server that settles in Bitcoin directly without swap risk and expense. Those are ultimately the only 2 options.
> Shitcoins are not the competition because payments are not the use case, settlements are,
The market says otherwise, which is why USDT-TRX has more volume than Bitcoin. This type of rhetoric is some Sayloresque store of value shit, and completely ignores what people are doing with blockchains. It is purely speculative and requires you to ignore trivially verifiable evidence.
Payments, remittances, and contracts. Those are the use cases of blockchain. You would like the real product to be settlement. Maybe it will be a long time from now. But Satoshi said blockchains were for payments, and the market seems to agree.
