I see where you're coming from — it's true that Bitcoin's base layer has strict limits on throughput, and Lightning was developed in response to that. But isn't that kind of the point? The base layer prioritizes decentralization and security, while layer 2 solutions like LN aim to handle speed and scalability — much like how the internet is built in layers.

When you say it's a "band-aid" for "chronic problems," do you mean you’d prefer Bitcoin to scale directly on-chain? Or are you pointing to something deeper, like mining centralization or usability barriers?

Genuinely curious about your view — always interesting to hear different takes on whether LN complements or compromises Bitcoin’s vision.

I’m sorry. I’m old and slow.

That’s an interesting point — I definitely agree that Bitcoin mining being dominated by ASICs makes it harder for regular users to participate, which can lead to centralization concerns.

A side note in regards of ASIC: I foresee (and some authors as well) mining Bitcoin will become nothing but a game of chance in the future. Having dedicated mining companies and teams dedicated to find a number won’t be profitable, so it will be like a lottery. Bitaxe, for example, have already mined full blocks not so long ago. Minimal? Yes. But they did indeed. Mining at scale and decentralized becomes a lottery in the end.

Just to clarify though: when you say "Lightning Network is not ASIC-resistant," are you referring to mining specifically, or to something else about how the Lightning Network works? Since Lightning doesn’t involve mining, I’m curious how you see ASICs affecting its role or adoption.

Would love to hear more about your perspective!