We aren’t opposed to sidechains or L2 processing systems that will “extend” Bitcoins capabilities or connect it to other industries, etc. That was always the plan.
The problem we have is that you don’t disable L1 in the meantime.
I would politely request that everybody make sure to include this sentiment when you criticize Lightning Network.
Our issue is NOT that Lightning sucks, introduces trust, or is designed poorly. Our problem is that it’s not supposed to be a replacement for Bitcoin.
I think it’s important that they understand where we’re coming from. Because THEY THINK we are trashing the experiment. To them, this makes us idiots who want “Bitcoin” to fail.
This is why I always say: “Re-enable Layer 1“ with every LN critique I tweet.
If we had a functional base layer that continued to thrive, we would likely be encouraging businesses to build micro-transaction systems, etc. Back in the day, the dream was that Bitcoin would become so ubiquitous that Banks would be forced to coopt it. On our terms. With our new rules.
But in that scenario, Bitcoin remained autonomous and functional on L1.
That’s what this is about. Not trashing the technology, the delays, or finding faults with the LN experiment. Make it clear to them that this is about keeping Bitcoin functional on the base layer while they try to build something that is free to fail without harming Bitcoin.
[link] [comments]
source https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/b298a3/when_we_criticize_ln_lets_be_clear_what_were/
No comments:
Post a Comment