Quote from: RNC on March 01, 2018, 09:12:14 PM

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

Let's assume the fee is $40. Which option is cheaper?

Option 1: Sending 4 standard Bitcoin transactions to the same person over the course of a few weeks and spending $40 in fees each time
Option 2: Paying $40 to open a channel, sending 4 transactions for free because it's a direct channel, then paying a second $40 to close the channel
Option 3: Because you've used Lightning regularly and already paid to have a channel open with someone else for a completely different transaction, but they also happen to have a channel open with the person you need to pay, you don't have to pay $40 at all, and just pay a few satoshi for each hop along the way for each of the 4 transactions you need to send.

Hmm... Is it possible that both of the options involving LN are cheaper? But by all means, continue to be completely obstinate, don't learn anything, use Option 1 and keep telling us that Lightning is a bad idea.