Quote from: n0nce on Today at 03:08:15 PM

Quote from: darkv0rt3x on Today at 10:59:39 AM

Anyway, c-lightning, mostly being written in C, I think the same way you think about running in low power devices but still, it's not the application code itself that may put some stress on the hardware, is what that code "tells" the hardware to do in terms of data processing.

Hey, I know how application code works and that it is compiled into machine language thus telling the hardware what to do, you don't need to explain that to me. It seems to me though that you're actually the one not knowing that Go code indeed runs less efficient than C code. So it is the code that puts unnecessary additional stress on the hardware, mainly depending on how well it's written and which language (compiler) is chosen.

Current- and next-gen mobile processors such as found in Raspberry Pis are easily able to run a full node + LN when using c-lightning, while they're sometimes hitting limits already today where lnd is used. And that's a fact.

Quote from: darkv0rt3x on Today at 10:59:39 AM

So, I'm just glad this claims were settled and we can rest assured that LN will be able to overcome any possible issues.

Yeah, I was saying: the guy is a classic clueless BCH shill. There's no way around it. You can't think BCH is a better or the 'real' Bitcoin and simultaneously understand LN, because if you would, you'd see your shitcoin is useless and solves nothing.

I know no shit about Go and don't even want to know. Same goes for most web programming languages. My small knowledge sticks to C, Bash, a bit of Python, a bit of Octave/Matlab and a bit of LTSpice.
That was what I meant, about the code efficiency and obviously, for compiled languages, the compiler itself. We can have multiple levels of code optimization in compilers.

Anyway, I got what I was looking for, that is to confirm my counter-arguments for what is said in that video. That's all.