Please beware of the difference between being against Lightning and being against USING LIGHTNING to justify changes to the protocol. You don't have to be against Lightning to acknowledge that for LN to be used to justify any changes, it must first be proven to work and to be necessary.

(i) Solve the routing problem, (ii) prove BCH does not scale on chain and LN is needed. Then we can start discussing ways to implement LN. We cannot prove or refute (ii) without first removing the block size limit and letting the network test itself.

Schroëdinger's cat:

if you place a cat and something that could kill the cat (a radioactive atom) in a box and sealed it, you would not know if the cat was dead or alive until you opened the box, so that until the box was opened, the cat was (in a sense) both "dead and alive".

Discussing whether the cat is alive or dead with box closed leads only to divisiveness and endless fights since no one has proof of either version.

In BCH as well, to determine whether LN is needed or not we must first open the box, aka remove the limit and see how the network performs. Discussing LN before removing the limit is like putting the cart before the horse, unscientific, unnecessary and divisive.

submitted by /u/heuristicpunch
[link] [comments]

from Bitcoin - The Internet of Money https://ift.tt/2OZHK8j