pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 15h \ parent \ on: Waiting Jack Dorsey answer with calm and patience bitcoin
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)
write
preview