I was dunking on forkers over this recently. They're playing narrative musical chairs hoping to find a seat at this point, because none of the forks actually do anything to scale Bitcoin.

The LNHANCE guy himself admitted it still ends custodially.

Well, we obviously don't need a fork to do that.

A failure to unilaterally enforce on chain is no longer Bitcoin, full stop. This results in an indistinction from every other sidechain thats ever been introduced, none of which have ever found utility beyond that of an SQL database.

They are all perpetual motion machines. You may as well use "wrapped bitcoin" on some shitchain. The "ECash payments" people can GFY for the same reasons.

Now, while there may be other utility in the proposed forks, the risk is asymmetrically to the downside. It signals high time-preference and foolishness to fuck with the greatest money ever conceived, just because of some theoretical nice to haves full of unknown unknowns, particularly when we're not taking full advantage of what we have today.

Ironically these forkers are bearish on Lightning for it having the same exact limitations of their desired shitcoin tree, except that Lightning is actually just reusable Bitcoin transactions and is here to stay.

this is why bitcoin being slow to change is a feature and not a bug. people need time to marinate on ideas and consider the pros and cons.