Quote from: DooMAD on March 01, 2018, 07:18:29 PM

If, of your own volition, you only use one channel when multiple channels are available, it's wholly unjustified to then complain about centralisation. It's your choice. Use as many channels as you need. If you only had the choice of using one hub, then yes, that would be centralised. I would be right there with you saying what a terrible idea it is. But there isn't one hub. So it isn't centralised. So it's fine. I don't know who 'Words Smith' is, but he won't change this fact.

Well when i first started looking at Lightning the cost of on-block transactions was $40 and more so yes I would assume people would only want to open
one channel and you are making assumptions if you think they won't rise that high again and a words smith FYI is someone that plays with words.

Quote

Still not the same thing as "banks charging interest", but if you want to continue to harm your own credibility by calling it that, be my guest (but I'll continue to point out you're wrong). Plus, anyone who actually understands Lightning isn't going to believe you, so you're only doing yourself a disservice in the long run.

Charges on BTC needed from the counter party to finance a bi-directional channel is interest on the money and as for understanding Lightning I gave you
the link to the white paper so argue with that and see who's losing credibility here.

Quote

Yes, there are fees.

YES YES YES Both unfixed Tx fees and interest or noddy fees if you want to call it that instead of interest and if those that host the block-chain
can push fees up to $55 by acting as a cartel then what do you think they are going to do here. Yes miners host these banking hubs and here is a map
lnmainnet.gaben.win

Alice now has 2,000 friends and $200,000 to finance all of the channels needed for each of her friends and poor old Bob has to pay a banking hub
(guessing) $10 a month even if he no longer wants a cup of coffee from Alice anymore.

Quote

If the fees with LN are smaller that using a standard on-chain transaction, then use it. If not, don't.

Not an option for us to pay $1.00 for a coffee and $0.10 in fees on-block because it won't scale and I am not about to pay
some miner/banker $10 per month to keep my channel open in case I buy 50 cups a month but only purchased one and I didn't
change the game from a year ago where pay-as-you-go was possible.

We have been feed problem-reaction-solution and I am not buying it with no blank guarantee like we had before when fees
hit $55 just to send $10 and see the block-chain itself becoming more like a central bank leaving the mini-banks to do what they
please by tweaking the so called "Smart Contracts" that allows them to up the fees just like we see now with near zero base rates
from central banks but borrowing money cost you or me 10% plus and it's our own money in the first place to make maters worse.

Quote

But what's definitely not an option is thinking we're going to sit here and accept you taking a steaming shit all over Lightning by cherry-picking the parts of the whitepaper that sound negative based on your limited comprehension of it. Troll harder.

Mr Angry Bird I give you logic and reason along with facts but it seems you have "steaming shit all over" your ears
and need to clean them out because your gutter talk only shows that you have lost the debate and have no answers.