shocknet, after all the back and forth, leaving another breadcrumb from my notes, largely with you...

scrolling the debate on twitter I also found this https://x.com/shocknet_justin/status/1898049077889077512

I didn't find owen kemeys's reply convincing.

there's also a whole saga of justin_shocknet and shinobi sparring across twitter and the bitcoin influencer social media.

Shinobi's an interesting guy and has interesting to say (critizing lightning mostly). eg https://medium.com/block-digest-mempool/lightning-network-yield-and-incentives-b2b624375094

There's history behind the beef. It's too much for me to grok completely as yet, but my gestalt is that shinobi has been a lightning skeptic from the early days because of the lack of a "business model" if you will, and with ark he becomes a fan although to be fair to him not a full on kool aid drinking fanboy

But he likes it, shinobi likes ark. Because ark has a business model. "Incentive alignment" to grow the network. I think to him ASPs will work a lot better for growth than the loose coalition of LSPs that make up what up little there is of commercial lightning. He's impatient, he wants bitcoin to succeed.

But now with lightning showing signs of maturity and much better usability, albeit still not that much actual use, shinobi is having a bit of a meltdown pushing ark as better than lightning, or perhaps it's more "lightning is broken but I know how to save it." Maybe he resents his earlier lightning skepticism not proving out. Or maybe he feels that it did prove out, and the clock is ticking to "save" bitcoin before it fully ossifies.

Whatever the case, shinobi seems to be in complete denial of the (lack of) scaling pressure, and also of the messy security issues, complexity and sybil risks of ark.

I find shocknet more credible.