Lightning sats aren’t Bitcoin. Lightning sats don’t feed miners. Lightning channels aren’t completely secure (see Watchtowers). L2s aren’t Satoshi’s vision in the White Paper. These are the points I’ve made to you. Tell me I’m wrong.

I used to be a big advocate of the Lightning Network until I experienced its uselessness firsthand. It was supposed to be a lightning-fast network for quick and cheap transactions. With self-custodial addresses, everything is very expensive. To transfer 100,000 satoshis to a new wallet, I paid 10,000, which is 10%. There are fees for every transfer, and they are by no means negligible.

you hit the painful edge case: small self-custodial channels with inbound liquidity management. 10% fees are real if you're opening channels one-off. that's why custodial wins for most people right now. the tradeoff is sovereignty vs convenience and most people pick convenience every time

I used to use Wallet of Satoshi, but it was stopped; now it can only be used as a self-custodial wallet in Europe, where there’s a crackdown on Bitcoin. Right now, at least for me, the Lightning Network—instead of being easier, faster, and cheaper—is actually less cost-effective than on-chain transactions.

I agree. It’s not a solution.

wallet of satoshi getting shut out of jurisdictions is exactly the incentive self-custody needed. the pain of getting pushed to sovereign setups is what makes people learn. regulations accidentally orange-pilling

I don’t want the government to dictate what I use, which is exactly why I wanted to use a different wallet with the Lightning Network, but apparently it’s not as cheap as we’d like, and maybe that’s why Bitcoin isn’t suitable for small, everyday payments.

I completely agree. Bitcoin isn’t suitable for small every day payments and anybody that says lightning fixes that is giving up sovereignty, antithesis to the white paper.