Many still do not understand either the blockchain trilemma or the trade-offs
If you want to scale you're going to have to accept trade-offs.
Hal Finney explains it well
Discussion
And why do you think I wrote these guides for plebs with brains, to show them how to became those "LN banks" ?
1. https://darthcoin.substack.com/p/bitcoin-private-banks-over-lightning
2. https://stacker.news/items/330346
3. https://darthcoin.substack.com/p/dunder-lsp-and-lightning-box-provider
Interesting.
The trilemma, you mean security, scalability and decentralization?
There being trade offs does not mean the current state is optimized. There is a protocol for example that preserves the security guarantees that exist for bitcoin, preserves and even increases decentralization by reducing the size of the blockchain, and increases scalability because it doesn't necessarily require a block size. It is called Mimblewimble. In pure MW, as was originally written, the entire chain is just the UTXO set. But there's a trade off: no programmability. No time locks, no multisig, nothing. The version that was ultimately implemented does have these features at a cost: very small leftover pieces from each transaction, called kernels, must be kept. That's a trade off. But the conflict between scalability, security and decentralization has been optimized, and performance can be orders of magnitude better than currently in bitcoin.
Are we future banks? Uncle Jim's extended out a bit?
Hal might have been wrong in the "interest rates will vary" part.