Disagree. I have believed in the potential of networked payment channels since Mike Hearn's work circa 2013. Properly applied, it makes perfect sense, economically and technically.
The only problem is, the Core people are using it wrong. They want LN to pretty much replace Bitcoin's functionality, which it cannot possibly do.
Networked payment channels could be a great supplement to Bitcoin. They're useful for very small microtxs (on the order of <1cent), especially recurring txs, e.g. paying for pageviews.
Even with the very low fees we now have on BCH, there is no need to do EVERYTHING on-chain. Very small txs are impractical even with 1 sat/B fees.
Imagine the LN, if nobody ever dreamed of using it for moving more than a couple of cents. There would be no liquidity issues, ever. Anyone with $10 could be a "liquidity provider"...
High-degree, high-liquidity hubs would be far more decentralized. You wouldn't need watchtowers, since the risk of channel theft would be meaningless when channels contain just cents.
Now couple that with low on-chain fees, so channels could be opened and closed much more easily and frequently, and the risk/liquidity barriers become quite negligible.
LN has limited use-cases, but is not inherently flawed. I hope we will have it on BCH one day, because here it can actually work!
It is inherently flawed on a ***crippled blockchain***
Ok, turns out we do agree! I thought you were aiming at LN in general, but you did say "LN on BTC"...
Interesting view. I'm starting to think more positively about LN.
LN is good for nano/micro-payments on non-limited blockchain.
The Coretard LN project is pure retardation.
