classic treatise

up there with your drivechain treatment

personal tide turner signal for me back then

Most of these are front-run by ShockNet's Razor:

"Everything stupid in Lightning is a direct result of the mobile node fantasy."

Channels are significantly more reliable when you run a real node.

Mobile nodes will always cost more in fees than it saves by re-using chain transactions.

If you're too lazy to run a real lighting node, you're the most likely user of trimmed htlcs, tinkering with a low effort mobile wallet appeals to people that send 1 or 2 sats that are not economical to resolve.

Running a real Lightning node on a real OS makes it trivial to ban Tor exit gateways and thus Tor-only nodes. Tor being retarded is not a Lightning protocol problem, but fair to say that Lightning implementations should drop tooling for it to discourage such stupidity.

Always-on nodes, that actually receive payments, have better routing heuristics to and from.

Mobile wallets hide proofs, because mobile wallet users don't care, that's why they use mobile wallets. Tooling to use proofs necessitates a proper node stack.

LSP's are a product of the broken incentives of mobile wallets, mobile wallets exist to sell LSP services to people that are guaranteed to lose sats anyway playing around with LN unseriously.

Any protocol that extends Bitcoin's functionality inherits Bitcoin's complexity and as emergent from its constraints. Few understand how Bitcoin works, so the expectation that users understand how Lightning works must also expect they understand Bitcoin (they don't)... or anything else along the stack like their OS or TCP/IP.

In fact, if people understood anything, they wouldn't use mobile wallets to begin with.