Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on January 30, 2016, 01:17:31 AM

His views on 0-conf and fees are orthogonal to a discussion on LN.

Then the author would have not mentioned it in a post about LN. Something is off.

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on January 30, 2016, 01:17:31 AM

How it will avoid centralization when the only likely working model will be hub and spoke.?
Why transact on main chain at all if payment channels can be settled (effectively) channel to channel?
How are routes going to be found in real time unless they are for common/recurrent payments?
How are routes going to persist? Or should they?
How long will funds need to be tied up on main chain to support single/multiple channels?

Quote from: sgbett on January 30, 2016, 03:00:51 AM

I don't see they are fundamental flaws. They all end with a question mark for one thing which implies uncertainty.
LN is open source and there are financial motives to run a node.

Exactly. While there are some engineering challenges to be solved nobody informed is seriously concerned with path finding. Also people could develop their own version of LN with everything listed there being "fixed". That's where the problem lies. Most people in this community have no skills or skills that are mostly useless and thus we just see them make hyperbolic complaints (out of boredom maybe?).

Quote from: AlexGR on January 30, 2016, 05:07:31 AM

All I'm saying is that bitcoin can be viewed as different things, depending the time you live in.

I understand that and this discussion is useless to me, so there's no need to continue.