All of the communities at use lightning. It works great for these people, as well as every schoolkid in El Salvador who learns it in their classrooms. It works great for Steak & Shake, where I can walk in and buy anything on their menu in seconds. Why don't you go test that one out for yourself if you don't believe it. I don't know what your problem is with lightning but to claim that Drivechains would have been better makes you sound like you have no clue what bitcoin devs had to do to scale BTC while keeping it sovereign.

Replies (7)

weev's avatar
weev 1 week ago
those people are, by and large, not using Lightning, they are using custodial wallets like Chivo and you have no proof that the majority of the transactions actually resolve on the Lightning network. When there is a custodial-to-custodial transfer, the custodians can settle up the difference however they please. It’s just a cell of fiat in a database at that point. If any significant body of people were running their own Lightning nodes, the failure rate would be massive and it would crater the reputation. You’re not touting the Lightning network’s success here, you are touting the success of simple transaction writes to SQL databases. Those are indeed very stable and useful. But they aren’t Lightning.
since the invention of the centralized exchange, I have never seen anything drag more trusted third parties into the ecosystem and destroy more sovereignty than the lightning network. every year it grows a new cancerous tumor so people can keep pretending it works. it has been a complete waste of time.
the only reason why people FUD drivechains, or covenants, or string concatenation, is that there is now a whole ecosystem of companies running some kind of centralized, parasitic, lightning flavored scaling on top of bitcoin. one little opcode would put these companies out of business. they have to FUD the sidechain idea and freeze opcodes so they don't die. this is a form of capture and it is sad that you can't tell it is happening.