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

funny observation that you link a chart that IGNORED this last current month.. because.. capacity dropped in the last month by alot (so that just debunks YOUR "year on year" growth, becasue if you include all months of the year, you will see a drop)

if you observe this very topic many long time recruits gave up.. and said so in this very topic too

but hey if you want to promote that LN is THE defacto solution for 19m btc to be used on.. but think 0.0046m btc over 6 years is good.. then i guess your happy to wait another 24782 years to get everyones bitcoins locked up and using LN

you do realise when bitcoin creates 4.6k new bitcoin in just a week and you want to think a weeks bitcoin creation is 'good' capacity for 6 years of a groups empty promises of being THE solution for all bitcoin users.. you know your the one pulling at straws..

and im not surprised that the idiot of the '2.625 religion' is joining the idiots of LN.. you both deserve to scam each other

my first 3 paragraphs were answering his question about gmaxwell.. read them it mentions gmaxwells triggers

Sounds pretty exciting, no?

funny observation that you link a chart that IGNORED this last current month.. because.. capacity dropped in the last month by alot (so that just debunks YOUR "year on year" growth, becasue if you include all months of the year, you will see a drop)

the PhoenixWallet which allows you to store your Bitcoin on the lightning network itself, has implemented "splicing" in beta and other great features!
✂️

Yesterday Blockstream released their updated LN implementation:
✂️