There are legitimate issues, which is why I highlight ongoing development, but: 1) medium-of-exchange usage in broad crypto is low outside of stablecoins. So Lightning is operating with that backdrop. 2) Many people wanted to use Lightning fully self-custodially, and perhaps it was over-marketed as such. It’s a 10x or 100x scaling improvement for bitcoin between entities, but there are still limitations for small users. Which is where it can combine with other tech. 3) The numbers are actually solid relative to how private it is, with no speculative token. Pure utility. Slow burn adoption.

Replies (2)

Of course we wanted to use it non-custodially. It was promised as a solution to scale Bitcoin, not to make it custodial with enormous privacy downsides.
Machu Pikacchu's avatar
Machu Pikacchu 9 months ago
I agree with your points and don’t want to come off as dismissive of lightning. I’m grateful for it and all the work being done in the ecosystem. I personally don’t mind the friction at this phase of adoption, but I’ve made the mistake of recommending lightning wallets to newcomers and when they run into the sharp edges it can set them back. Now I only recommend on-chain to anyone who hasn’t been sufficiently orange pilled.