good morning corporate saboteurs. it costs too much to open a channel.
rollups are just better than lightning. rollups don't use payment channels and this is why they have fewer limitations. you can start your wallet on a rollup and never ever touch mainnet and still retain self-custody. the UX of onboarding a new user with rollups is clearly superior.
you can't have self-custody on lightning without doing a transaction on mainnet first. and as you use your self-custody lightining wallet, you periodically have to top off your channels with even more onchain transactions. lightning does not spare you from paying onchain fees. it just kind of makes it so you can get away with doing onchain transactions less often. the UX of lightning is lacking because of the requirement to make onchain transactions or sacrifice self-custody. bitcoin maxis need to finally learn that this is a false choice.
rollups are also compatible with hardware wallets and cold storage. and since there are no payment channels, you can send any amount and it will make its way to the destination without any routing issues. rollups do not require the user to create invoices, nor do they require the use of a name service to maintain a persistent receiving address. rollups are possible on BTC today via ordinals. activating some new BIPs could make them even better.
rollups are not perfect. the market is lacking in rollups that have a permissionless architecture. until this is completed, only whitelisted actors can run the rollup nodes and pick transactions to commit to the mainnet. there are also very few rollups with a robust failure mechanism. only some rollups today enable you to access your money if the nodes fail. overcoming these challenges is probably easier to achieve than adding more bandaids onto a payment channel system.
bitcoin maxis need to accept that payment channels are not the right tool for every job. it's clearly not working for everybody because of the requirement to do onchain transactions in order to have self-custody. other avenues for expanding capacity need to be explored, whether they require new BIPs or not.
bitcoin not welcome on the darknet markets
I would not recommend holding any amount on-chain until something changes such as the activation of BIPs and/or the introduction of a better L2 scaling solution. it's basically broken right now.
bitcoin community has autoimmune disorders
the user should not ever have to do transactions on layer 1 to achieve self-custody on layer 2. throw lightning in the garbage bin. it is a dead end and a waste of developer time.
you can't start a self-custody lightning wallet without doing an onchain transaction. sooo bitcoin is broken right now. enjoy being in a cargo cult. maybe prince philip will fly in and save you
your devs are openly hostile to adding features in bitcoin. you're not going to get zcash style privacy.
>monero is an unregistered security
p2p exchanges are not more difficult to use than non-custodial LN wallets. you aren't seriously suggesting that p2p is an insurmountable barrier compared to managing payment channels.
TORN being delisted from binance does exactly nothing to hinder your ability to use tornado cash. it's just a governance token, which you would purchase on a DEX if you actually knew what governance tokens are and how to use them. nobody is purchasing governance tokens on a CEX with the intention of participating in governance.
so your devs who are allegedly second to none are only capable of coming up with a L2 that is incompatible with cold storage? and where users can't self-custody without touching L1 anyway?
if you don't solve child genital mutilation the "nice" way, hitler will come back and do it for you the "mean" way. you can't ignore this forever.
or just don't do a L2 scaling solution with payment channels
the wallet of satoshi thing is very good news. I knew that people would keep believing lightning network was a good idea if they could hide from its limitations behind a custodian. take the custodian away and people are forced to confront the reality of these limitations. fewer people will believe it is a good idea when they have to interact with the real thing. lightning network was never a good idea and it should be scrapped altogether.
if you are using non-custodial lightning and you think it's just fine and dandy, you are not normal. you are like a person who thinks everyone should use gentoo linux. a complete weirdo with no theory of mind. this frame of mind is not going to get you more adoption. nobody except for your little weirdo club is going to use this lightning crap and pay ridiculous onchain fees that are growing by design.
this cargo cult talk doesn't make the world go round
I'm not concerned about being able to use LN without doing onchain fees. the whole thing should be scrapped. I'm concerned that bitcoin devs are married to this payment channel rube goldberg disaster and can't think of a better way to scale.
their job isn't to convince you or me that lightning is sufficiently private. their job is to convince darknet market administrators. and they have totally failed.