> Have you tried sending large amount with
#lightning?
Yes - Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, mostly large amounts don't work because many channels may not have thay liquidity. If I want to send large amounts of Bitcoin, I'll do so using the base layer for the time being or connect to a channel with enough liquidity.
I'm really unsure what you're trying to show here, that it's not ready for a switch to be flipped that turns all worldwide fiat transactions to lightning? No one suggested as much.
> I’m sure you understand this but when using lightning the security assumptions and decentralization is mostly those of the lightning network not the
#Bitcoin network. As you probably know, lightning isn’t very decentralized. Also, lightning total transactions volume is a small share of those occurring on the base layer or with wrapped
#BTC. So again, it’s not proven that lightning can scale Bitcoin transactions.
Lightning, isn't sufficiently scaled - No where did I ascertain it was, or that it was proven to be.
Anything built FOR Bitcoin benefits off of Bitcoin's network effect, be it directly or indirectly.
When I stated I want my data on the longest running blockchain, I'm not saying lightning runs on the base layer as much as lightning functionality requires it. When a lightning channel opens, a base-layer transaction on the Bitcoin timechain is broadcast and verified - That's the crux here.
> Isn’t the exactly what #BIP300 and #drivechains will prevent us to do? What you say here seems in contradiction with your opposition to the concept of #drivechain.
Unsure what you're saying here or how it related. I was talking about the myriad of other blockchains, not the Bitcoin timechain. We leave that one the fuck alone, because it works well as is for the one purpose it has.