Is that implementation final? I believe it can change to the needs of the users over time. At best I do not think there is a final implementation of LN. Some might even say it is "vaporware" at this point.
though code is not finalised. the mindset and concepts are becoming established. by atleast talking about it and making people aware of the concepts being stupid, may tempt the devs to change it before its locked into code..
rather than staying quiet with a wait and see and then have to put up with their code because they were not told what users want and dont want early on.
LN so far, are focused more on incentivizing nodes to stay active by making them profitable.
stupidly considered the future direction of bitcoin by shifting people away from immutable transactions.
How is it shifting people away from immutable transactions?
seems like your asking the big question about why bitcoin is such a big invention, and why immutability is important.
Are the transactions inside LN made to be deliberately changeable?
yes, thats the whole point. able to change who deserves what and how much they deserve. done in seconds rather but not secured by bitcoins PoW.
if funds were as secure as bitcoins blockchain while in LN. then we wouldnt need miners..
Also remember that LN is a choice for the user whether he or she wants to use it or not. But everything gets validated in the blockchain when the channels are closed.
also remember bank accounts is a choice for the user, whether he or she wants to use it or not. but users can verify thieir balance when they count out the bank notes when closing a bank account
thats very loose logic.. thats like saying dont worry about bank accounts you can always ask them to write you a cheque and get your account closed. and use the cheque to buy gold
requires dual signing (permissioned funds) which puts users back into the 'banking' managed systems
Please tell us how LN puts us back into the "banking managed systems", and please explain how this is bad and not simply a creation of choice for the users?
yes as a choice, i see its utility for gambling, exchanges, faucets, advertisers.
as for what they are choosing. people atleast have to be aware of the choice. and some people need to be reminded it is just a choice and not try pushing it as bitcoins only future solution.
as for how its deemed banking managed system
DUAL SIGNING. imagine a hub as a local bank branch. lets say there is a walmark bank2.0, starbucks bank 2.0, etc. where the funds are not exactly yours because you need permission from a separate entity to change how much you deserve and permission to separate yourself from their control to go back to the open network (bitcoin mainnet).
shying away from negatives and sitting on hands not even talking about issues solves nothing and doesnt help to make people aware of the whole picture.
having a sit back, shut up and wait and see attitude is something that lets a small group decide the direction of the masses because they are not told anything different. we as a community should be active and part of deciding "what users want". because we are the users, we are all bitcoin and we all should not put "trust" in a small group of people.
