Franky1's analogy that LN is Banking 2.0 is accurate
Except for the part where
it isn't.
The last beta code , I played with was OS/2 . I don't waste my time on beta code anymore.
You should probably GTFO of crypto, then.
Everything is in beta.
Having someone claim every problem that arises, well it is beta, gets pretty lame,
get the shit working or don't release it to the public as I am not wasting my time fixing their lousy programming for the new banking system.
It's beyond adorable you think you have anything to offer in terms of development.
First you push hubs, then you claim users should just transact between each other.
Do you seriously think individuals are going to waste all of that time and all of the hassle transacting in LN offchain crapshot, when they can just transact onchain.
I'm all about giving people options. You're about authority and telling people what they can and can't do.
Also, what's your alternative proposal? What do you think we should be doing instead of LN? Larger blocks? Tell me what the point is in having two BCHs. How is that, in any way, productive? If you want larger blocks, there is already a blockchain that caters to your needs. You're free to choose that one if you like. But you're not making our choices for us. Get a clue.
Your False Religious Beliefs blinds you to the reality of how bad LN sucks and the fact no casual users will ever run hubs or transact at that level.
John Q. Public wants easy / quick / simple transactions without needing a PHD to use it.
(LN is none of those things.)
Without being easy for the consumer, mass adoption will never occur, and bitcoin will continue to be a greater fool's game for naive geeks.
Some of us are just more patient than others.