I don't know about r/bitcoin and r/btc ... both heavily censored and keep accusing each other of tons of stuff.
Specify deposit amount to deposit and get invoice.
I don't know about r/bitcoin and r/btc ... both heavily censored and keep accusing each other of tons of stuff.
Lol. They are jealous that people actually use BTC. On LN, things are still nice and smooth.
The only problem I see is when/if BTC should scale (second layer is build but not ready and not adopted yet), SegWit 2x got canceled to vote against a shady agreement but I believe a 2 MB Block size limit ( = I dont know how many weight units that are but I want a bigger size of blocks even if its just 1.5x ) will make the developement better in all terms. At the moment all LN developers are under stress to solve the scaling problem which could be reduced by a small block increase which could be also used to see how many nodes really cant effort it to run. So far the argument against the increase are:
-Block space needs to cost money = with a small enough increase and the demand at the moment thats the case
-bigger blocks lead to more hard ware expenses of node owners so to centralisation/less spread = this sounds like an inductive argument to me which no one can disagree but the magnitude is unknown
-> to get the best LN I believe it would be good to give it more time and less stress with a slight block size increase
LN is not the only option being looked at. There are smarter ways to fit more transactions into blocks too, such as signature aggregation using Schnorr, ZK methods, etc.
I wish there was more block space too, and a 2MB block would be nice if it was not a hard fork. Alas, we're going down a safer path and thinking long term. BTC will just get more efficient and more secure going forward for now. I think a block size increase is not out of the question, but it should be the absolute last resort, not the first because "it's easy". Incentive to develop more efficient methods must take precedence.