maxis and knotzis are getting everything wrong about the idea of centralization risk. they are being inconsistent and nothing they are saying makes any sense. L1 consensus changes, including covenants, drivechain, and small conservative blocksize increases, do not create tangibly dangerous amounts of centralization. it is a complete myth spread by dangerous middlemen companies who should not exist. their business model depends on people believing that nothing should change. the liquid federation doesn't want what's best for you. lightspark is not your fucking friend. the lightning network creates observable amounts of dangerous centralization, due to the inability of lots of people to maintain their own channels at the same time. the market will not bear it. centralized and permissioned appliances like liquid, spark, arkade, and ecash exist entirely to make the lightning network appear to work, while enriching the wrong people. I am sick and tired of having conversations about centralization risk with people who think the lightning network is all we will ever need. these people are blind. centralization is not a "what happens if we do x" thing, it's a right now thing and lightning created it. the lightning network and all of its cancerous tumors are starving miners of fee revenue, which they need due to the dwindling block subsidy. but you can also argue that simply doing conservative blocksize increases won't really be a suitable replacement and you're probably right. this is where we are stuck, and only L1 consensus changes will give us better scaling and protect us from centralization. covenant proposals and drivechains make the most sense here. I consider any ossifier as an enemy of decentralization. these people need to be eliminated. they are a threat.