pull down to refresh
17 sats \ 1 reply \ @standardcrypto 11h \ parent \ on: Waiting Jack Dorsey answer with calm and patience bitcoin
Before we start fighting, let me de escalate by trying to be more precise.
None of the economically important parts of bitcoin -- economically important enough to control development -- needs lightning.
I need lightning, for dicking around on stacker news. As an investor, long term I need lightning for bitcoin to succeed. But short term, it's ok for lightning to be a bit drifted and vulnerable to corporate capture.
Nobody with real skin in the game really feels the pain from corporate capture, or potential corporate capture, of lightning. That's my point.
None of the economically important parts of bitcoin -- economically important enough to control development -- needs lightning.
Terrible escalation, because I generally agree with that.
I'd probably nit the definition of "control development", on the one hand Lightning has and will continue to influence development, but more on the shell rather than on consensus which is why I'd tend to agree. The core isn't impervious to the incentives created by the shell but it's very resilient.
As an investor, long term I need lightning for bitcoin to succeed.
See, even as a Lightning maxi I have no illusions that Lightning is needed for it to succeed as an investment. Bitcoin will always be Numeraire.
lightning to be a bit drifted and vulnerable to corporate capture
This is where I'd say lightning is needed, from a cultural perspective. Glad we found our fight!
If the culture of Bitcoin is to revolve around circular economies, self-custody, censorship resistance, then Lightning's use-cases for merchants is the only real avenue for that.
Lightning cannot succumb to ETF's or Treasury companies, the incentive for merchants to own their revenue tools or for users to buy things they're not allowed to is more levered to Lightning than the base chain.
Nobody with real skin in the game really feels the pain from corporate capture, or potential corporate capture, of lightning.
No one feels it with the chain either, ETF's and Treasury Co's as derivatives have created liquidity, not hurt it. There's no corporate capture, anything corporate is purely opt-in on either layer.
Could argue the lack of self-custody hurts miners as transactions get pooled in sql databases, corporate lightning is just an extension of that, otherwise Lightning channels create more transactions not less (Jevon's effect)
reply