Quote from: TangentC on Today at 05:31:40 PM

Bitcoin is easy to use , for even the moderate PC person.
LN is the stuff , where you have to be a super nerd to even mess with.
This is not the majority of people.

No you don't. You may be that "nerd" in order to understand their technical background, and LN's is obviously harder to understand, but both of them can be easily used by the averaged person. (After you show him/her how it works)

I agree that being difficult to understand is a disadvantage, since you have to understand everything you're doing on this sector, but sometimes, good stuff require complexity to work. I hope that we both agree that if you transact off-chain it is more practical.

Also, I want to point you that the majority of its users are already unaware of its technical background. They just use it, because they feel it's simple. You shouldn't be forgetting that Bitcoin was invented by those "nerds". It then delved into the market, as always...

Quote from: TangentC on Today at 05:31:40 PM

https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/91211/how-can-someone-lose-funds-in-lightning-network
You lose your partner's revocation keys:
You lose the commitment transactions:
Losing funds from going offline

Please excuse me! I am reading about LN these days, but it seems I didn't know that. Merited by BlackHatCoiner (1)

Anyway, I don't have much to say here. For the revocation keys and the commitment transactions, I can gently respond that LN is under development. I guess that there will be a solution for those two on improvement proposals. As for losing funds by going offline, I'll have to take it a better look, because I haven't fully got how can that happen.

Quote from: TangentC on Today at 05:31:40 PM

So, I only leave the amount on the exchange, that I plan on spending.
No one should ever keep all of their eggs in 1 basket.

What exactly will you accomplish if you move your funds to an exchange? Paying even higher fees?

Quote from: TangentC on Today at 05:31:40 PM

However if the exchange was reputable , and they lose my coins, I can sue them for damages.
So I can get something back.

So, all bets are off. Tongue

Not sure if you can sue them, but anyway.

Quote from: TangentC on Today at 05:31:40 PM

Artificially limiting BTC onchain network , so that I can claim 12 year old kids are running full nodes and keeping the network less centralized is just plain wrong.

No matter 1 or 1 billion non-mining full nodes, it has zero effect on decentralization, because all they do is relay, they don't validate ,
so this virtue is pure imagination on the part of bitcoiners, kind of you have to believe it to join the bitcoiner cult.

You're lucky that I'm ran out of demerits. Ever heard of Sybil Attack? You are contributing to the harmony of the network if you run a full node. AFAIK, you aren't connecting on the same nodes each time you establish a connection, but a Bitcoin Core expert can correct me. There's that thing called peer discovery that stimulates decentralization.

The fewer the nodes the worse the decentralization.

Quote from: TangentC on Today at 05:31:40 PM

If this makes no sense to you, no worries just means you are a loyal bitcoiner that does not question blockstream.

Just for your information, I ain't a Bitcoin fanboy, but neither a hater. I like seeing things objectively. I don't believe that Bitcoin can be used on a global scale, or in other words: I don't believe the so called "global adoption", because realistically it can't work.