Let's leave rank out of this for a moment, because I think it is irrelevant to this discussion. Let's get back to the topic and what you think the LN is. In my view, the LN network solves a part of the scaling problems, by taking some of the micro transactions and placing them off-chain.
LN, as a second layer protocol is suspected to centralization as it has been extensively discussed up-thread and plus a very primitive axiom I believe in: Any second layer protocol on top of bitcoin is vulnerable to centralization, no matter what.
I believe bitcoin is the ultimate and the state of the art decentralized system and as I'm used to emphasis and argue, and have tried to prove regularly, bitcoin's current situation with pools and ASICs is not inherent and MUST be resolved by means of an evolutionary approach.
Any utility, UI, browser, navigator, analyser, ... that uses bitcoin protocol to lubricate user interaction with the system, remains decentralized as long as it has not wrapped it in a new protocol and abstracted users from the actual system.
Although, Bitcoin is open and it is definitively any developper's right to invent such protocols/abstraction layers, we should be aware of the implications and threats involved and by no means such a protocol deserves to be advertised as a solution to scaling problem in bitcoin.
For instance, I can trivially design and implement a protocol for traditional banks to keep track of bitcoin deposits of their customers, providing very fast and 'secure' transaction processing utilities for in-bound transaction processing plus a simple clearance system for inter-bank/out-band transactions.
Obviously it would project parts of transaction burden off the blockchain, but do I deserve any merits? Is it wise to consider my system as an scalability solution for bitcoin?
Right now we have centralized exchanges that transact billions of dollars a day without any overhead for bitcoin network, are they parts of a scalability solution?
They are mostly dangerous wild scammers. Bittrex as one of the biggest ones, few months ago, deliberately seized and scammed millions of dollars worth of user deposits.
My other concern here is the sole protocol stacking approach. A protocol above bitcoin protocol is evil, imo. People are joining bitcoin because of its beauty and its transparency, such abstractions and wrappings, alienates people from the system.
You are making a debate just to make a debate. You can still use Bitcoin onchain without problems if you want to. But you should not criticize developers if they want to make tools that people might use.
Quote
Quote
People are not forced to do all their transactions off-chain, they are just encouraged to take their micro transactions off-chain, because it is faster and cheaper to do that on a second layer that are focussed on that.
It is just the same as forcing people to do something, making their life a misery and giving them just one option to exit, your favorite one.No one is forcing you, and how would it give them misery? Lightning will also make transactions cheaper onchain if they do not want to use Lightning.
Quote
Quote
Everyone knows "Block size" increases is one of the most ineffective ways to scale a network, so that is not even considered as a possible solution.
Wrong! Block size debate is not over, It will be over. Let us observe Ethereum and make that our case study. Give it 10 years. Bitcoin Cash will also follow the same path. If it can increase its transactions per block more than Dogecoin. Hahaha.
Quote
Quote
Make a BIP. The problem in this forum is there are sometimes "very smart" people, but truly they have their own agenda.