> Is there a decentralized ledger
You were just arguing that ledger centralization in Lightning is absolutely okay, where everyone will use a custodial shitcoin version of Lightning and that’s fine because someone CAN transact in real Bitcoin. I don’t see how much different this is from “well, sure, the people issuing the gold-backed token COULD be lying about their gold reserves but that’s okay because you can have Krugerrands at home.”
I don’t buy this chain of argumentation, which is why I think Lightning is not the solution, and think we should give BIP300/BIP301 a shot at deossifying the base layer and see if they can make transacting Bitcoin at scale with asynchronous broadcasts work.
Replies (2)
> Lightning is not the solution
Lightning is not a solution for distribution, and never was, distribution is constrained by Bitcoin supply itself. If only 200M people can use Bitcoin without a trust layer then only 200M can use Lightning without a trust layer.
All Lightning does is enable that 200M to make infinite, granular transactions, instantly, at neglible to no cost.
> at neglible to no cost.
historically this has been true only if one of the following is true:
1) your time has no value
2) the time of your counterparties/customers has no value.
I hope your project is immensely successful at changing the status quo. But I, like many, am exhausted with LN. Normally you get only one chance to tell people they’re doing it wrong. LN got dozens out of goodwill towards Bitcoin, but it has since used them all up.
