Take it like you want. Ripple started with wanting to be decentralized at some point. LN will be from the start. But that is not the point. The point is using another system than your beloved bitcoin. It simply will not work out the way the devs think. And forcing them by showing them how "notworking" bitcoin is will turn against them. People would cry out louder to fix the network and it doesn't matter what we think, they would accept the bitcoin solution fixing it. (No, I don't want to discuss that we can push "Bitcoin" around in LN.)
LN is not comparable to Ripple or any other form of altcoin. You are obviously among the ones that think that the internet is build on a single layer.
I'm a coder myself with years of experience though I don't like coding in C and similar languages. I studied but stopped when I worked what I would have worked after studying anyway.
Coder != engineer.
And it is no question of going around claiming that they are right only because they have a master in informatics or something. Facts can be stated and surely they stated all facts that support their position. Still, what was given is mostly guesswork, no facts. It can't be guessed perfectly fine what will happen in 5 years with blocksize raisings. There still will be technical development and hardware advancing.
No. The developers do not do that and will respond quite nicely (and openly) if you ask them about the engineering challenges that are present. LN is far from perfect but it is better than anything proposed so far.
And trying to fix a network by telling the users to stop using it and using another network is something that never worked. Bitcoiners will be bitcoiners and want to stay as bitcoiners.
LN isn't 'another network' (definitely not as you view it).
So another guesswork for the future.
No. This is based on calculations and data gathered over time. It might be possible if Bitcoin was solely run on datacenters. A decentralized network scales quite inefficiently in comparison to a centralized one. Look at the TPS that Visa can handle today; Bitcoin doesn't even come close (and won't come close in the foreseeable future without a second layer).
I'm tired of you pushing around the same accusations over and over by mostly pointing out proofs, to support your view, that are guesswork. Or finding a tiny bit of unrelated thing to try to go against my words... even though that thing does not really have anything to do with what I wrote.
Nope. I've provided quite a lot of proof actually (e.g. your lack of understanding of Segwit in another thread). However, we keep going in circles since you don't want to accept some facts (reminds me of another top poster) and admit to being wrong more often (only when you factually are).
As long as you only ignore and don't ban me, maybe that would be better.
A rather interesting implication.