Fair enough if we're ruling out alternative implementations due to security concerns. It was only a suggestion based on the conventional wisdom of "not putting all your eggs in one basket".
Ok, I get it. You said something silly and now you are sorry.
Apology accepted but you should stop terrorizing my personality too.
Just keep reading and try learning instead of talking nonsense about LN in a decent highly technical topic about a critical turning point in bitcoin history.
Poor analysis as usual. There was an exchange of ideas and my idea has now been established to be objectionable. So instead of continuing to plow on regardless of how many people tell me it's a bad idea, I'm accepting that decision and not continuing to pursue it. That's something
you could learn, but I suspect you won't.
Also, I sincerely doubt this is a "turning point" on the scale you have in mind. There will be some proposals to introduce a little more vigilance, but it sounds like you're expecting some sort of total rebuild from the ground up. Your track record of contributing to technical topics usually consists of telling people that everything they're working on needs to go in the trash because you supposedly know best.
1. Foster growth of the bitcoin sub-community whose priority is to resist changes to the protocol. Those who value stability, predictability, immutability in an asset/currency over shiny new things.
2. Create a technical means for this community to have its voice heard. Possibly blocking future soft forks from occurring, or at least keeping the "old ways" alive.
Hang on, what? You want to have a
veto in what many see as a permissionless system? No thanks. Also, you already have a technical means to do that. If you want to block future forks to preserve the "old ways", you're going to have to start with a fork of your own. Keep it frozen in time forever if you like. It stands to reason that you won't have many developers on hand when you do need to change something, though.