There is a lot of misinformation out there (i.e. part of BU as being a closed source, which they actually stated that they will PREVENT such thing), so one has to do his own research.

I'm not familiar with the intricacies of it, but I'm probably the only one who doesn't see any problem with miners taking over.
Most people are clueless on how economy works (Andreas included).
Vertical monopoly (as opposed to horizontal monopoly) is actually a good thing,
which would probably lead to a lower fees, so it would benefit both the miners and the users.
(Think of buying a cellphone. The cellular manufacturer forces you to also buy the camera, which if you had bought them separately it would cost you more.)
Users could have BU *with* LN so they could choose the best path for them which means more options to the user. What's wrong with that?

The thing is that people are "all for decentralization" but want BTC to rule... I see it as an oxymoron.
I really don't have a problem with BTC failing. That being said, crypto world is too centralized around BTC anyway.
Everything is traded against BTC and we need some more options. If BTC fails it fails... After the dust settles we would be in a better place.

It's a 6-part questionnaire which plots the taker's political positions on a four-point compass and plots estimates for the positions of 20th century leaders.





I wonder where people here stand.


https://www.politicalcompass.org

English:
https://www.politicalcompass.org/test/

Español
https://www.politicalcompass.org/test/es

Português
https://www.politicalcompass.org/test/pt-br

Deutsch
https://www.politicalcompass.org/test/de

Good luck!