MIT researcher Thaddeus Driya, co-author of Lightning Network whitepaper and former technical Director of Lightning Labs, believes that the network will avoid corporate centralization in General because of its design, which does not require expensive and does not require specialized equipment 
Co-Author of Lightning Network, kind of a conflict of interest , don't you think for an impartial opinion.
LN Hubs will be required at the least to report as a money transmitter at worst as a banking institution.
The expenses for these will make it so very few actually run a hub once enforcement of the AML/KYC regulations begin.
What "LN hubs"? We have Bitcoin wallet services like blockchain.info that do not require their users to verify their identities. Plus what if I run a Lightning node and many users happen to connect to me? "I will not enforce AML/KYC" will be my LN node name. Hahaha.
Quote
The LN hubs fees are also variable , it is funny no one thinks that their fees price can't also skyrocket. 
It is very scalable at present, and as the developers improve transaction throughput more, the fees will be the last thing to worry about.
Quote
LN Hubs require constant internet access to avoid funds being stolen, a simple ddos attack at the right time could allow LN funds to be stolen.
There is talk of a WatchTower system to help prevent that, but it is also going to charge additional fees if it ever gets working well.
There is talk of a WatchTower system to help prevent that, but it is also going to charge additional fees if it ever gets working well.
Learn to walk before you run. The Lightning Network is growing and improving. It also has more nodes than Bitcoin Cash.
I believe Adam Back said that increasing the block size is already an absolute for the future of the network. But what Bitcoin Core will not do is to increase the block size to satisfy some group's political agenda.
i still laugh at the above.
but nice wordplay windfury. it seems your indocrination into that group has taught you how to twist words.
adam back paid his devs to PREVENT increasing the legacy blocksize to satisfy HIS groups political agenda
only problem is you slipped up. how can bitcoin core not increase the blocksize if increasing it is some groups aganda..
remember you pretense that bitcoin core doesnt control anything. so how can they prevent it
this is where windfury has to admit core (adam backs paid devs) do have control.
just check out bitcoin.org/en/download oh look core and only core is mentioned.
(notice hypocrisy yet)
You and your conspiracy theories again. Not increasing the block size is a design decision to keep node requirements minimal to maintain decentralization. But go ahead and enjoy your 32mb block size that nobody uses. Dogecoin has more transactions than Bitcoin Cash. Hahaha.
Plus I hope those blocks become full just to see how centralizing Bitcoin Cash is. It will come to a point that very few people can run a Bitcoin Cash node because not all people are willing to upgrade their hardware.