pull down to refresh
80 sats \ 3 replies \ @random_ 4 Feb \ parent \ on: Pretty visualization of the lightning network lightning
#875235
@SimpleStacker explains it in a more palatable way
Looks can be deceiving. The tweet itself is just plain wrong. "looks decentralized to me" is not a real argument. Following it up with an epithet that those who disagree are altcoin peddlers limits conversation.
If you want to know how to determine whether LN is decentralized and why it is not, zap me 10k sats. I don't get paid to correct people. So I won't.
Lightning will develop under the hub and spoke model.
We won't have tons of people, normies so-to-speak running their own lightning nodes.
The minimum channel size (i've checked) to even open a channel with something like Strike is... (.1) BTC
Which is not only far more than the average Bitcoin hodler's stack, it's more than 99.9% of people have or possibly will ever have of Bitcoin especially 'real' Bitcoin in self-custody.
If we get 'hyperbitcoinization' there will be a plethora of companies (hubs) and plebs (spokes) with apps, LSPs, and full nodes all running Bitcoin with various levels of sovereignty.
Most people will probably use some kind of LSP (phoenix comes to mind) that is non-custodial... but has the LSP backend to provide customer service, channel liquidity management, LN addresses for receiving, and wrapped invoices (better privacy made easy).
That doesn't mean you can't run your own full node (I do) you can and it's great. But most people won't do that.
For most people right now the purpose of Bitcoin is savings to offset inflation, the education for full-blown Lightning usage is maybe at like @ ).1%) of the population.
Lightning and Bitcoin isn't perfect, but imo it's better than every other system to save and transact in sound economic value digitally.