You are correct sir. It took me a while to punch in on that. Which do you recommended? Start 9, Citadel, or my node?

Its gonna get better, its a work in progress.

you do touch L1, but only to get on and off, it only needs to happen to a coin once, and not everyone has to do it to maintain sovereignty. a person could transfer a million coins to a rollup, send them to other people who have never touched L1 before, and all the recipients would actually own them. this isn't possible with lightning. rollups don't use payment channels, they don't have concepts like inbound liquidity, and they don't require an individual user to interact with L1 to start owning his own coins. with lightning, you have to open your own channels from time to time and do L1 transactions to top off your inbound liquidity. there are also other limitations with payment channels that don't apply to rollups, such as routing issues and the size of payments.

it's literally what blockstream liquid does. even lightning does this. it's bitcoins locked in a HTLC where they get unlocked on some other accounting system somewhere else. sometimes there is a decentralized two way peg like in the case of threshold tbtc or even lightning, and sometimes there actually isn't like in the case of blockstream liquid. people spent a lot of time talking about decentralized two way pegs. this whole thing is enabled by segwit, which made HTLCs possible in the first place. I guess you were not paying attention, all you focus on is lightning, and there are no other scaling solutions. I get the feeling that you have never actually studied any of these moving parts.

No, the difference is you want adoption for adoptions sake. You don't care what the end result is going to be = people beholden to intermediaries thru custodial adoption and CEX chokepoints.

you can't own your own money on lightning without making transactions on L1, and there is a limited capacity for people to do that. since this pressure exists, people are pushed into lightning custodians where they don't own their own money. lightning doesn't actually scale, it just rearranges itself into a custodial system by emulating banking. a good scaling solution would enable users to obtain coins on L2 and actually own them without having to directly touch L1. then L2 transactions would get compressed into proofs and inserted into L1 blocks. each L2 user would collectively pay into L1 transaction fees by having their transactions included in a proof. this blows the lid off of the node requirements, since the security is inherited from L1 once a transaction is published in a L1 proof. there are good scaling solutions and lightning simply isn't one of them.

The most cucked thing I ever read. You sure you are "on the front lines of p2p dex development"?

Lol, now apply your logic to optional "privacy" on Bitcoin. Everyone isn't going to jump 100 hoops to attain it, "just tech nerds", like you say. And they aren't going to deal with running a LN node either!

If it leads users into using the thing custodially...IT ISNT A SOLUTION AND NOT SOLVING SHIT

the fact remains, the most popular way to scale bitcoin is by locking coins in a HTLC and issuing tokens against them on a separate blockchain using a smart contract. if the lightning network didn't have so many intractable flaws, people wouldn't have gravitated toward an EVM solution. if the lightning network is so wonderful, it would have the most bitcoins deposited into it. I keep hearing over and over again that the market cap of bitcoin is evidence that it is the best thing ever, but for some magical reason this same logic doesn't apply to the TVL of scaling solutions. your devs had 8 years to fix lightning and they wasted it huffing paint behind a dumpster the whole time.

the fact remains, the most popular way to scale bitcoin is by locking coins in a HTLC and issuing tokens against them on a separate blockchain using a smart contract. if the lightning network didn't have so many intractable flaws, people wouldn't have gravitated toward an EVM solution. if the lightning network is so wonderful, it would have the most bitcoins deposited into it. I keep hearing over and over again that the market cap of bitcoin is evidence that it is the best thing ever, but for some magical reason this same logic doesn't apply to the TVL of scaling solutions. your devs had 8 years to fix lightning and they wasted it huffing paint behind a dumpster the whole time.

I'm not even wrong. lightning has 4600 bitcoins deposited into it. the top capacity nodes are all exchanges or some kind of custodian. systems on entirely separate blockchains have more bitcoins deposited into them. a single non-custodial system called threshold has 2900 bitcoins deposited into it, and there's over a hundred thousand more bitcoins deposited into other systems with varying degrees of trust involved. the EVM is the most popular bitcoin scaling solution today, and it's a verifiable fact. when it comes to scaling bitcoin the market has spoken already, you just don't want to hear it.

I'm not even wrong. lightning has 4600 bitcoins deposited into it. the top capacity nodes are all exchanges or some kind of custodian. systems on entirely separate blockchains have more bitcoins deposited into them. a single non-custodial system called threshold has 2900 bitcoins deposited into it, and there's over a hundred thousand more bitcoins deposited into other systems with varying degrees of trust involved. the EVM is the most popular bitcoin scaling solution today, and it's a verifiable fact. when it comes to scaling bitcoin the market has spoken already, you just don't want to hear it.

I don't need to come up with a better solution to recognize something is trash.

The creator Tadge Dryja is in the first quote if you can read.

Who gives af who it came from. Are the facts and quotes true or not?