how about stop REKTing attempts and calling them oppositions to bitcoin and telling them to F**k off to an altcoin to test their theory
then you wont see people actually making altcoins to avoid your cult group drama.
even vitalik left trying to develop bitcoin to then do ethereum because of the cultish control core leadership created
even duffield left trying to develop bitcoin to then do darkcoin(dash) because of the cultish control core leadership created


the reason there are so many altcoins since core jumped in is because people do want something different to core but find it less of a headache to deal with core by those thousands of devs making thousands of altcoins.. instead of testing out different idea's on a bitcoin testnet and finding the best features for bitcoin to adopt.. yep even bitcoins testnet is moderated to only facilitate core feature/roadmap code

and secondly. stop then crying that you dont see other reference fullnodes on bitcoin when its cult group like you that dont want to see alternative brands on bitcoin "coz it adds to core god-devs leaders workloads of reviewing other peoples work"

your cults core-centric mindset is the central point of failure!! in soo many ways

thirdly how about you and your group of core god-dev worshipers stop reporting people who want to discuss alternative idea's to cores roadmap, and stop reporting people who also want to highlight core exploits.. then things can actually get discussed and developed on the bitcoin network instead of the whole 'abandon bitcoin and use another network if you dont like cores plan' game you and your ilk prefer to play


and lastly
you now cry that on this forum you see discussion.. hmm.. well it is called a DISCUSSION forum.. literally talk is in the name of the url
this website is not github!!
(and i wont go into the details of githubs moderation policy managed by andrew chow who only wants core-positive discussion on the "bitcoin github" repository)

yes people and even core prefer to discuss idea's and see what is practical/popular first. thats how new projects begin
but you dont, yet again, even want the discussion beginnings to flow. the devs you idolise only want core-positive(ass-kissing) discussion
its become an echo chamber

you try to cut off any scaling discussion by saying that the only option is your silly subnetwork and then you chime in with silly narratives of peoples idea's wont work unless they make their projects huge blocks to cater to "visa/one world currency distopia because thats what mainstream requires" then cry a second time that peoples idea's shouldnt be visa numbers because a hard drive is to costly.. but then you want transactions (one tx) to cost more then a hard drive 'for the good of the network'

you and your cult tribe do absolutely everything to avoid even the discussions of any scaling at all to grow in popularity even when there are thousands of topics wanting scaling, you always chime in trying to quash them by promoting the only future is subnetworks, so yes many people end up making other networks

the proof that people dont get far with core in leadership is the fact people end up making other networks to avoid the core governance program you love and idolise

you dont like even discussion of scaling options, you dont like other brands being on bitcoin network, you dont like people that see failures in core. heck you dont even want people discussing/highlighting/revealing core failures
heck you dont even want people knowing core have control of the network as it harms their control if people start realising it and doing something about it

I've already read issues regarding the Lightning network months ago. Some are too pessimistic about it that they're outright dismissing it already as a solution to scaling. But some others are saying they're simply exaggerating or setting an ideal standard.

For somebody who's just on the sidelines, I don't feel like this is a big deal. This is merely part of the bigger process of development and innovation. The Lightning network is under development. While at it, there must also be other alternatives that are being developed. This is all part of a never ending progress.

Reading this article; I would say have opened my eyes to the possible reasons why bitcoin lightening network hasn't really gained as much attention as I've always thought it deserved, I actually over the year, wondered why people, bitcoin investors and traders keep complaining about bitcoin high transaction fees, and how the network has become really slow, but yet, no one is adopting the much hyped lightening network which we all were made to believe that it is an effective solution to the high transaction cost on bitcoin network.

And one question that comes to my mind now is, if actually bitcoin lightening network is a failed project, or likely to be a failure because it's never going to get the much anticipated adoption we all are waiting for, then is exactly is the next thing to hope for concerning the scaling of the bitcoin network? Will the network remain as it is currently for eternity? This I would say will be very risky for the continued existence of bitcoin, and maintaining its top position.

If the lightening network fails, then we as a matter of urgency, need another scaling solution for bitcoin network, else, we might wake up one day and discover bitcoin is continually losing market dominance.

Bitcoin is undeniably interesting. Its shaking up the entire system, offering potential others simply dont have. The skeptics were wrong - this is a force to be reckoned with. Decentralized, streamlined... it brings advantages traditional finance cant even dream of.

Obviously, we've got issues to work through. The price swings, the regulatory questions - nobody's saying this is perfect yet. Every huge technology starts this way. The fact that we're seeing major players adopt it, even countries looking at it seriously, well, that speaks volumes. Could Bitcoin be the everyday currency of tomorrow? The possibility's there, and that's what makes it worth watching.

I'm confused, because if indeed the community would support a hard fork into bigger blocks, then why does Bitcoin need to go through the Segwit soft fork? A hardfork would not only be an opportunity increase the transaction throughput, it would also be an opportunity to make Bitcoin's code cleaner/fix the transaction malleability issue, no?

That "other secret crap" that was behind 2X's proposal was to fork Bitcoin away from the Core Developers.

or we can look at it the realistic way
when fee's came down in 2024 after the 2022-23 bitcoin congestion(fee wars).. people actually closed lots of LN channels and removed their liquidity from LN.. now whats left of locked value for LN is majority held by institutions that want LN to succeed purely because they sponsored alot of bitcoin devs to create LN in the hopes the institutions can make ROI from being LN middlemen offering payment route services/ balance renting(loans/credit/iou).. so thats why the institutions didnt leave but the individuals did leave. because individuals didnt enjoy their LN experiences but were strangleheld locked in due to congestion(until the fee's to unlock/settle came down and made it affordable to leave LN)

the reason why millions of people are not jumping into LN and instead sticking with other options(cex, mainnet use or even trying to use other subnetworks of bitcoin or altcoins) is because LN is FLAWED. and this topic aswell as others are now having confidence to start admitting to the flaws publicly

It's possible you may have heard of some of them and not realised.  One of them is blockchain.info and their 'Thunder' client (pretty sure everyone here has heard of blockchain.info).  Blockstream and their 'c-lightning' or 'core-lightning' client are fairly prominent.  Lightning Labs and 'LND' are also pretty widely known.  There's also a 'Zap' wallet which is based on LND.  ACINQ and their 'eclair' client would probably be slightly less recognised.  There's one from Spiral called 'LDK' (which I don't even think I've heard of until just now).  And even Electrum technically has their own implementation (again, I'd imagine most people here have heard of Electrum).  I think there are other ones too. 

The fact that all these competing products exist gives me more cause for confidence than it does skepticism.  Clearly these unrelated developers all recognise the same potential in Lightning and they're all doing what they can to leverage that potential. 

Detractors are free to have their discussions and make their comments, but I'm still of the opinion that words are far less significant than actions.  Some people are actively building, while others are merely talking.  And I'm pretty sure I know which set of those people are going to be more influential in the end.   

Lightning is creating financial intermediaries at every level.  What is also very interesting is, like Lightning, every 3rd party application to date has add 3rd party intermediaries.

The concept is "a purely peer-to-peer form of electronic cash".  - Bitcoin white paper

The problem is that it doesn't fit the current business model of being a 3rd party in every transaction and we are struggling to understand what that means.

If we want Bitcoin to succeed in its vision we have to use it "purely peer-to-peer".

Lightning is anti-Bitcoin.

The intended one for bitcoin creation was the buying and selling of goods and services in the digital world of cryptocurrency but that has been sideline and overplayed with investment and that is how I obverse it. I think if really the main purpose of creating bitcoin which was p2p of two customers of the shop as Alice and Bob did in the transaction. And I don't know if you have another intended solution apart from the p2p of buying and selling. You can still tell us your own.  So what is yours?