Found myself in a r/TheLightningNetwork 'learn the fundamentals' thread and decided to once again ask about how LN will handle routing/path-finding if LN somehow scaled up.
The post copied below ended up getting removed for 'spreading FUD' since it was linking to posts criticizing LN based off real, recent examples. Most of the links referenced posts on their own subreddit or r/lightningnetwork.
Just another example to highlight to those browsing r/btc that the narrative is tightly controlled on the BTC/LN side of the (lack of) debate.
Even if I came across as abrasive, I'd still point out that my questions have still gone unanswered in a 'Learn Lightning' thread.
Why would large hubs all censor another large hub? They would all be hurting themselves by doing so.
The new small hub(s) trying to compete with the large hub(s) would absolutely have a chance of overtaking in the long run, but like I said it would be a very long uphill battle and, just like Facebook competitors, so they are much more likely to fail.
As for 'incentivizing spreading' you're ignoring the economic factor that the more hops you have the higher your fees will be. This is the economic reason why large hubs will become inevitable, whereas my concern about the routing side (which is still unanswered, btw) is the technical reason.
This liquidity allocation problem crushes the little theory you just made to make you feel good.Except it doesn't. You can't argue with the fundamental factors that encourage centralization. :)
But are you here to blame the ones who build because they are a threat to your coin, or to understand how it works :)I'm a long-term Bitcoin supporter, and BCH is my chain of choice since it's actually usable, but you should always keep an open mind and see if what the competition is doing is worth adopting. That was the Bitcoin plan to begin with: if any other crypto created worthy features Bitcoin would simply adopt them since it's programmable money. There's no reason Bitcoin wouldn't remain #1 because of this.
As it stands, and the lack of technical explanation to my questions reinforces, LN is still simply an engineering problem trying to solve a problem that shouldn't exist to begin with. It's a total failure for adoption just to show a couple recent examples.
And the cherry on top is that if LN somehow did end up solving all the horrible pain points it has and enabled massive scaling it would simply work better on a crypto like BCH that scales. So no, saying BCH is threatened by LN as it stands is laughable. :)
I await the fundamental technical info I've now asked three times for, or the incoming ban for the audacity to ask for such info.
[link] [comments]
source https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/mxb7kz/another_case_of_proln_mods_censoring_discussion/
Comments
Post a Comment