Honestly, if I were a dev and having doubts or second thoughts about the work I was doing on LN, but then I read one of franky1's posts, I'd redouble my efforts and work that much harder just to spite him.  That's the effect he has on people.  He thinks he's being demotivational, but he's doing the complete opposite.  If he had any real faith in what he's claiming, he'd just shut up and let it happen.  But he sees LN development continuing and more in the pipeline to come, so he feels compelled to keep sniping from the sidelines.  Palpable butthurt is palpable.  No one likes his worthless ideas, so he has to lash out at the ideas people do like.  Petty and tragic in equal measure.

Lightning Network capacity at highest levels ever.
source.

Bringing this quote from 2021 back.  It's been a full two years and franky1 is still wrong.  There's no mass-exodus from BTC to altcoins.  The only thing to be seen here is franky1's head full of delusions that he calls "scenarios" in a lame attempt to make his fantasies sound more credible.  If people were going to dump BTC for altcoins, they would have done it by now.  It doesn't matter if BTC is more expensive than altcoins.  He can't seem to comprehend that people are willing to pay more to use something with utility.  Cheaper is not always better.  Cheaper is often a trade-off.  A compromise.  You have to give up something in exchange for cheaper. 

He would make those compromises at the base protocol level.  Cheapen everything for everyone whether they like it or not, weaken their security whether they like it or not.  But sensible devs have built cheaper on layer 2, so users get the choice as to whether they want to give up some security in exchange for getting things cheaper.  He calls those trade-offs and compromises "flaws", but they're simply conscious decisions people are free to make if they choose to. 

It's beyond clear that franky1 would love to stamp out all forms of choice.  He cannot stand it.  How very dare people do what they want without his input and approval.    

Sociopath.

No frankandbeans, it's you. You're the one obsessed about making the Core developers look "evil" by accusing them that they're keeping the blocks small so they could promote their, what is it? Their "alt-subnetwork"? Without taking into account about the technical debate that they've presented. But once presented with a technical debate, the big blockers start to use big walls of texts made up of ad hominem, straw man fallacies, and disinformation to confuse and gaslight everyone.

 

The evidence is clear.  On-chain "scaling" (which isn't actually scaling) might gain a few extra transactions per second.  But off-chain allows for a far greater number of transactions per second.  Even with all your whining about routing issues, it's still giving us, right now, a larger number of transactions than your caveman notions of how Bitcoin ought to work would give us.  No one cares about your backwards, ignorant notions about how this should work.  You have zero credibility, you can barely even read and most people find you to be an undesirable nuisance at best.  Give it a rest, you deluded basket-case.

when the group using the "validation node" debate to not scale onchain are the same group that want pruning by default thus centralise only a small group of nodes to have the blockchain... its that idiot group causing more centralisation by making political demands that even more people not only NOT store the blockchain.. but also NOT even use the mainnet daily to want to sync the blockchain, thus defeating their own stance about their pretend desire of importance of the blockchain when its obvious they prefer a network that does not even have a blockchain
in short the blockchain is important but they dont care, so much so they dont even realise their path is causing more centralisation under the guise of silly agendas they pretend to play, pretending their agenda helps the blockchain decentralisation. when actual fact is that it does not


when even core devs have for 6 years said 4mb is network safe compared to their previous stance of 1mb safe. that means they COULD HAVE continued a regime of LEAN legacy tx to allow 4x tx count growth.
however they didnt go that path.

instead the byte miscounting and premiumising of actual lean transactions to then make bloaty witness tx seem affordable. has been their path. all to offer a feature gatway path to offrmamping to other insecure networks that dont even have a blockchain. nor even need confirmed blockchain balance to open channels or offer inbound balance to their partners.

also if you even look at their groups favoured subnetwork(this topics main characters) who have released stats on their events. of under 300 events per month (PASSING THROUGH THEM, not triggered by them) this is far far far less then the 2000tx per 10minutes the main net offers

even funnier is these guys premiss to put sole influence, promise and hope into this single subnetwork knowing its flaws that have yet for 6 years to be fixed, are ignoring that other subnetworks have populated more, meaning even users are voting with their funds to abandon LN and use something else due to the politics and delays in any/all scaling opportunities.

but going back to first point for emphasis. just using the 4mb acceptable space that wont harm the network (as core agree) would actually have allowed 4x more lean legacy tx, without the miscounting of bytes, whereby pruning was not a feature thus all those downloading core would actually be FULL validation archival nodes(keeping the blockchain decentralised)

offramping users to other networks that dont need full nodes and suggesting those that want to be full nodes should prune by default. are the ones that will centralise the blockchain the most. especially when they want only one dev group managing the rules on what software collects the blockchain data.

subnetworks have a NICHE but are not the solution. especially not this flawed subnetwork called LN that needs a complete rebuild or be scrapped and a fresh attempt made using different economic model.. rather then waiting another half decade for empty promises and pretend successes, even when the stats do not convey what they pretend

im not a bitcoin cash fan. i never used it i never even claimed their forked coins of the same key i used on bitcoin ever

you are the ultimate troll that are again spouting silly rhetoric trained on you by an idiot mentor of yours that makes you think those that dont treat core as god must be a fork coin lover

 your mindset of thinking the only solution is to idolise core or use another network, is a failure of your understanding.
core devs and their corporate sponsors should not be the sole cult of responsibility of bitcoin network and its subnetwork progress

 and its really time you look beyond your own scripts of gospel recitation and start to think for yourself for once. its making you look foolish, stupid and empty of any incite

you are just angry that someone is telling you the promises your mentor made to you years ago are broke and unfixable.. yet the 6 years of waiting for LN flaws must atleast be poking at some part of your brain that must atleast wonder what went wrong

have you ever tried to question your gods in a critique way, instead of pandering to their gospel

LN does not need some mass consensus event organise an upgrade/fix for functions... so waiting 6 years for fixes is a lame thing to wait for. if they have not fixed their flaws by now. realise they cant and wont fix it
thus the promise that LN is the "solution" is a dead broken promise. no one should settle for "just be patient" any longer

stop waiting years for the hopes your gods will eventually get to make your favoured subnetwork better.. realise they had their chance to fix LN. they havnt. so its time they and or others try something different to fit the small niche services you want to use offchain

by the way there have been other devs not corporate sponsored and not part of any numbskull pigeon hole group you want to put people into who have made other subnetwork bridges with far more capacity and liquidity than LN, becasue they heard the rumbles of lightning and avoided the strikes(lack of work/delays/excuses/refusals to work) and covered themselves from the shocks your still ignorant of

He claims he made his own client and has never published it.  However, I have a strong suspicion that he's full of shit and doesn't want to admit that he's using Core.  Or he's just an SPV user and will simply follow whatever consensus rules are set, despite how much he whines about them.  He can barely read, so I very much doubt he can code well enough to build a stable client.  

---

Says the only person in the world with his own made-up phrases for established concepts, where he deliberately calls things by other names in a weak attempt to degrade their image.  

Your script is to convert "layer 2" to "subnetwork".  
Your script is to convert "offchain" to "other networks".  
Your script is to convert an inclusive and eloquent soft fork into "bloat".  

Have you ever stopped to notice that no one is adopting your make-believe language?  



THAT is an "other network", yet -you- -repeatedly- -argue- that BCH should be called "Bitcoin" and LN should be called "other network".  You're the most disgusting person in the entire crypto-space.  Far worse than Wright or Ver combined.  Utterly contemptible.

No? But you merely claimed that Bitcoin "bilaterally split into Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash", right? Therefore making Bitcoin Cash as rightful as having to be considered also Bitcoin? You further said that it's like the "Dollar". There's the U.S. Dollar, the Australian Dollar and the other "Dollars". What was that? Your attempt to make what is considered Bitcoin worth less?


To be called a troll by you is an honor. That means I'm doing something right. But you, why would trustworthy developers like gmaxwell and Achow give you a negative trust-rating?


He's gaslighting. It's actually to confuse the newbies reading our debates.

It's so moronic that the forum vote for him as the "anti-hero", giving him recognition. It probably means that a majority of people in BitcoinTalk don't truly have a grasp of basic concepts about Bitcoin or what's happening around it.

Can't even answer a question. Idiot.