Quote from: S00rabh on September 03, 2018, 09:31:01 AM

Good that I found this thread. I have been asking this question on r/bitcoin with no real answer. How is that LN will not cause centralization.

As I understand(Please correct if I am wrong) inorder for me to send BTC from A to B, I need to open the channel. So as a user I would have to do the same thing again If I have to send BTC from A to C (Unless B already has an open channel with C).

I think in long run we will see centralized points which have multiple open channel that users would connect to.

I know people dont like it but BCH atleast has a solution or even variable/flexible blocksize would solve in much better case.

You won't get able any answer if you show pessimism/negative views towards Bitcoin on r/bitcoin. You better ask this forum or https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/ if you've question which show pessimism/negative views.

It's hard to avoid ~~centralized~~ centered LN nodes since merchants or nodes with high liquidity/balance naturally would have high connected channel since people would open new channel (merchant) if there aren't any available path/route and there's fewer available path/route (merchants & nodes with high liquidity/balance) if you intend to use LN for bigger payment.

This thread Basics of the Lightning Network - explanation and wallets should give you more information.

Quote from: bob123 on September 03, 2018, 09:50:41 AM

Quote from: S00rabh on September 03, 2018, 09:31:01 AM

I know people dont like it but BCH atleast has a solution or even variable/flexible blocksize would solve in much better case.

It's not really a solution. They postpone the problem.
Increasing a variable (blocksize) can never be a scaling solution.

A lot of new problems appear with a bigger blocksize which shouldn't be ignored.

For them it's not problem/doesn't matter since they think only mining full-nodes matter and miner should/must buy expensive hardware since they earn profit from mining.