Quote from: alani123 on Today at 10:32:55 AM

@Satofan44

It's funny how contrary to me posting sources of actual LN developers saying themselves LN is so lacking in security features its unusable, you just resort to name calling to get a point across.

I've seen no counter arguments supporting LN with evidence here. We need more than "transaction speed goes BRRRRR" if we're going to promote a solution for mass adoption.

Right now miners are accepting 0.1 sat/vByte transactions and many blocks are going under capacity since the mempool is nearly empty. This happens allthewhile other networks perceived as "crypto" propagate thousands of transactions per second. Clearly the mark has been missed by BTC. If we're to make a comeback something better than Lightning Network will be needed.

This isn't FUD. It's facts that LN developers would also stand by.

It's just that LN isn't ready for mass adoption, it' can't scale well and it's a big waste of resources to try and adopt it. We're going to need something more seamless by the level the competition has reached by now.
One day BTC will have a scaling solution. But LN ain't gonna be it.

We need to start this conversation from an entirely new base and you aren't helping with this attitude.

If I may intervene here, you say mempool empty? That’s success—retail adoption requires low fees (0.1 sat/vB = $0.0005 tx). LN processed $2.3B in Aug 2025 (Wallet of Satoshi data)—show me one core dev calling it "unusable." Fedimint ≠ LN. Your "facts" are recycled FUD from 2017. You oppose a hard fork with bigger blocks as well. Run a node, or are you shilling for ETH?