schnorr is being mis-sold as a witness size reduction. .. but it only benefits those using multisig and segwit transaction formats.. not a benefit to bitcoin onchain legacy transaction users. and its size rduction is not that much.. the hidden utility is that it hides how many parties are in th multisig.. which is a security risk for those thinking one thing.. but under the hood its another.
imagine thinking its a 50-50 cosign.. then realise its a 2-3 multiparty where your signatur is not actually needed. and their was a hidden 3rd party managr (or your counter party with 2 keys), you would not know

the point is convenience at a cost of loss of independance and reduction of security is something we should not advocat for.
all this stuff like LN.. people lose funds for speed. (i have only highlighted a couple of ways out of dozens more that people can take funds)
segwit to allow third part monitoring because txID's cant change thus third party can monitor
all this stuff like schnorr for witness size reduction, by not revealing who signed what
all weaken the security and trust of bitcoin and loses whole point/ethos of blockchain security/trust.

all this 'convenience' stuff is just turning people into using fiatesq services. at the cost of making bitcoin onchain unattractive to use.
bitcoins onchain ethos was to not be fiatesq but to offer something better than fiat. things seem to b going backwards.

do you realise there are even new opcodes which do not even sign the amounts into a tx. so that usrs can edit the amounts at the last minute to adjust for tx fee's (or take the whole lot) without needing a new signature from the 2 parties to revalidate the new who deserves what.
oh and guess what. these new opcodes actually re-introduce malleability..
so it reveals segwit was not about malleability. it was about allowing other things in. and ahve managers, co parties etc all of which make sending a transaction more risky.
but all peopl care about is 'faster/cheaper).. which could have been solved years ago without security risks by not stifling onchain innovation

normal people wont know how to read a raw transaction. nor will they know what they are signing. infact users wont even know they are signing for something as it will be on 'autopiliot' (but maliciaous parties can tweak their node to their favour)

bitcoins original vision of self control 100% push to anyone you want without barriers. and all the other ethoses that made blockchain and bitcoin tech so revolutionary. has been stifled/limited/twisted for commercial gain

schnorr wouldnt make LN faster. but would open more malicious loop holes to allow people to steal funds.
as for bitcoins mainnet.
segwit has a 2x capacity and about 2.1mb size(IF EVERYONE used segwit and NO ONE used legacy)
segwit+schnorr has a 2x capacity and ATLEAST 1.5mb-2mb size(IF EVERYONE used segwit and NO ONE used legacy)

core devs set the 'weight' as more because other scripts wil be added later to bloat up the witness area as these scripts do need 3x data compared to the basic in/outamount part of a tx

as for the economics of offchain vs onchain..
usually convenient fast services has a premium higher price and the slower system has a lower price. allowing a fair trade off of speed vs saving.
unless your trying to kill off the slower old system, by making it as unattractive as possible

core devs have made onchain both slower(limiting onchain scaling) and more expensive. thus de-incentivising people from wanting to return to bitcoins mainnet. then along with factories with their extented locks beyond the channel locks. keeps people in LN for longer.

again think about the old 19th century banks..saying:
gold is heavy.. hand it over and PLAY with these receipts which are not 100% your because it needs the signature and verification of the bank manager.
how many people actually cashed in thir paper receipts(bank notes) for gold

but there are flaws. one side can use to steal from the other. so its not a fair 50-50
also even as far back as 2016 they were talking about due to the issue about needing to be online to ensure the other party doesnt mess around. they already envisioned third party managers.
here is andreas talking about it i skipped to the important part where he starts talking about the latst concept
https://youtu.be/wqbQJ82Hf0s?t=1m37s
1:37-3:00
this was him using a LN flaw about unfair stealing... and advertising that thirdparty managers will be needed.. as a way to try selling why segwit was needed.
you start to see them admit flaws in one concept to advertise another concept.
learn factories. as thats the latest bit about keeping funds from broadcasting when channels close and also third part managing chanels.
oh and one fun fact.. schnorrs concept is to hide WHO signs what and hide if its a 2-2 or a 2-3 multisig. meaning that when you open a channel you will know even less about the channel partner and manager and not realise that if partner and manager hve 2 keys. they can over rule you.
you wont know who signed it. and wont be able to prove you did not agree. because of how schnorr hides all that validation signature stuff into one 'witness'

you ar the one saying 100%.. and guess what.. if you read the post.. i was telling you that YOU DO NOT HAVE 100% CONTROL even BEFORE they are spent.
maybe next time i should reqest you read it 5 times. have a break to let it sink in and thn rad it 2 more times again. as it seems your not comprehending. even when i did highlight it to make it even easier for you

oh and you highlight more. even when you PLAY with your txB and chang amounts ovr to your partner.. guss what. they do not have 100% control of the funds after spending either.
its a co-managed / co-sign system.. NO ONE HAS 100% control

read it 3 times.. go on read it 3 times
this was me saying how based on what i feel is YOUR 2016 limited idea.. where > > YOU < < think the person retains 100% control .. then i could buy 3000 coffee's and keep the 1btc

i highlightd it..
remember it was you that said you have 100% control of the funds
for two years my pretense is that users do not have 100%.. that they actually are co managed. like having a bank account
the black bold/underlined was me explaining where i think YOU are stuck...
the green is me arguing the opposite
so if you think you kep 100% control.. its actually you that needs to prove you can buy coffe and keep control of the funds to get the 1btc

i even went into the depths of showing that even when you get to PLAY with the AMOUNTS of a tx. you are not 100% in control as it requirs 2 signatures. you cannot solo sign the tx YOU PLAY with.

i am not going to insult you im going to just do what i done before. ask you to do som research, learn LN, learn factories, update yourself on the concepts and run some scenarios.

oh.. and rusty russel has pointed out many many flaws.
what i have found out is the bitcoin community(users not devs) are very quick on reddit and this forum to scream out utopiam positives. but dont actually understand LN.
hense why i need to pull them back into reality by rvealing the flaws

there are already thousands of utopian optomists. echo chambering themselves and so there does actually need to be a few people out thir to not be ass kissers who are not afraid to mention the faults.

another thing.. moving forward to 2018 concepts. when you learn factories. these are also multisig. so your funds are even less your control.
yes yo can play with amounts. but you need other people to sign them.

..

now all thats said.
im going to presume that you will say that locks wont be a month long for just the channels.
well knowing the 100 node image scenario i providd you the other day. 4 channels per node is still iffy even for just a village of 100 population.
the average is suggested 4-8 nodes for 100 node network and 14 channels for a 1000 node network. and ven mor channels for more population to be reliable.. (under an old hop decentralised network without factories/bank hubs)

now real life thinking. are you going to make lets say 4 channels and make 4 onchain tx's to fund them channels knowing it will be 4 settlemnt onchan tx at the end (8 onchain transactions) for just a couple days of spendiing.
think about it

real stats
visa card users only do 42tx a month (~1.5tx a day) each
so will you open these 4 channels for a reliableish routes around your small village with only a 4 day lock knowing you will only on average spend your funds 6 times.

nope.
you end up thinking with the time wasted setting it up and ultimatly having 8 onchain tx's just for 6 coffee's not benficial.. so you end up planning out a month lock in.. (devs say 3-6 months.. but the reality is no one can preplan beyond a few weeks to 1 month.. so lets go with a month)
which if advantagious that LN has saved you funds. you woul put funds back in..
(this uis undr the 2016 concept)

..
now move on to the 2018 concept of factories. to not have the hassle of redistributing factory funds(which would have been settle onchain but now just curculatd through factories) you will keep your channels at a month. and then to secure the factory the factory tx would need to be longer then a multiple of months... other thing to note. is that instead of a month of just coffe you put in all your salary.. or atleast alot mor thn just coffee

now look at real life
the early 19th century with the gold scenario.
putting gold into (banks)'factories' and then they give you bonds. and you use those bonds with local bank branches and then play around with local bank branch notes.. yep many banks had their own design of bank notes.

how often do you think people ended up getting their gold out of the vaults...

last point
i would not have had to make such long posts. if you ran some scenarios to have seen the issues for yourself.

now to add onto that. now you know although you play with a separate tx. BOTH need to sign it.

ill add another point where YOU lose even more control

you also have to provide me with a temporary address and i provide you with a temporary address
so now your PLAY tx is like this
payment 1
bc1qLNchannelfranky1DoomadB 1btc
out
1blockchainfranky1address 0btc
BC1qDooMadaddresstemp1 1btc confirm maturity 432blocks
<both need to sign>

the maturity lock means after a month lock. if you broadcast payment 1. it will confirm, but YOU cannot spend the temp1 funds for a further 432 confirms (like mining pools cant spend fresh minned coins for 100 confirms.. but this example maturity is 432confirms(3 days))
anyway lets step back intime back to the month lock where paymnt 1 has not been broadcast.

if there is a payment 2. you give me the private key of temp1 address when we make payment 2 offchain thus making it not an advantage to send payment 1
now.. next flaw

imagine we are making payment 2. and as this is all offchain. i have tweaked my node to request you sign my payment 2 first.
you sign my payment two. (i have yet to send you my paymnt 1 temp1 privkey

and i refuse to sign your payment 2 unless you give the private key of payment 1. as there is no way i wil trust that payment 1 is dis-advantaged to then be confident to sign payment 2.
you send temp1 private key.. but i have NOT send you MY temp1 privkey.. and not sent you the sig for your payment 2.

i then.. because its all offchain theres no way to stop me.. i continue to refuse to sign your half of payment 2
the only valid payment you can spend is your payment 1. so if you send payment 1. the only paymnt you have thats valid...

guess what. i can spend your temp1 funds within those 3 days
as this is the revoke punishment.

anyway. lets simply talk about the channel partnership (old 2016 concept.. which is where i think your stuck in).
imagine if i deposited 1btc into a channel direct. and i retained 100% control of that. when i buy a coffee... star bucks needs some security that it will get those funds.
guess what. starbucks gets control of the original 1btc...
this is the chargeback.. (oops i said a dirty word...) .. i mean revoke punishment
think about it. if i always had 100% control of the input from the blockchain of 1btc(utxo). and starbucks never had control of that 1btc blockchain UTXO
i could buy 3000 coffee's and then broadcast my UTXO as if its a a standard tx thus get my coffee and kep my 1btc.

now here is a big hint. smart contract.. emphasis .. contract.
contracts are multiparty

things have moved on from the glosy promsise adverts you may have read. i think its time you go and use it or atleast run some scenarios

i think your maybe still reading old whitepapers from ~2016 which was before revokes were even coded. yea they may have ben mentioned by from reading what you perceive as what concept version you understand. it seems your about 2 years behind
..
p.s
i have said for a small niche LN has uses. but its not
a sole solution for bitcoin.
a feature just for bitcoin to make bitcoin great again
a scaling solution. (even rusty russel admits LN cant scale)
again because its not a feature jsut for bitcoin. its not a scaling solution for bitcoin
not a decentralised system to avoid servers(banks2.0)

its a separate network. for many coins. where funds are locked up. and yes servers will be king (re read first paragraph about the mobile wale/lightwallet requirements)

i may have facepalmed your comments a few times. but i have also asked you to do something positive. which is to learn LN by running scenarios..
if i passed our comments onto a language analyst you will see that i have been more civilised.
i have shown examples. i have highlighted issues.
it has been you that has evaded running scenarios or actually explain chennels, factories, how funds move, how revokes work.
you have just replied with insults.

anyway. let me step back 2 years. back to the concept you understand
lets imagine users had 100% control
in: 1blockchainfranky1address 1btc -> out bc1qLNnodefranky1 1btc lock:4032blocks(1month) <only franky signs>
in: 1blockchainDooMadaddress 1btc -> out bc1qLNnodelDooMad 1btc lock:4032blocks(1month) <only Doomad signs>

you have no control of my funds.. but.. for 1 month i dont have control of my funds..
now heres where the 2015 concept fell apart.
lets stop at this point. thers no point describing the concept of smart contracts. as we have hit the first flaw before we even gt to that part
firstly
whats stopping me using my node funds on separate channels
EG pretending i offchain am putting my
in:
bc1qLNnodefranky1 1btc
out
1blockchainfranky1address 0.5btc
1blockchainDooMadaddress 0.5btc

but secretly i done this with someone else
in:
bc1qLNnodefranky1 1btc
out
1blockchainfranky1address 0.5btc
1blockchainJANECafeaddress 0.5btc

solution. ONCHAIN you need to fund a co-signed address.
so lets move back to bfore setting up .. but moved to nwer concept from the 2015 concept heres how it looks early 2016
bc1qLNnodefranky1 + bc1qLNnodeDooMad = bc1qLNchannelfranky1DoomadA
bc1qLNnodeDooMad + bc1qLNnodefranky1 = bc1qLNchannelfranky1DoomadB

ONCHAIN
i send 1blockchainfranky1address 1btc -> out bc1qLNchannelfranky1DoomadA 1btc lock:4032blocks(1month)
you send 1blockchainDooMadaddress 1btc -> out bc1qLNchannelfranky1DoomadB 1btc lock:4032blocks(1month)
the lock prevents it even getting into a block for a month

now i cannot use funds with jane offchain. because the funds are locked between me and you. and we need to co-sign
i know what your thinking. that we have separate transactions. your right.
i PLAY with A
in
bc1qLNchannelfranky1DoomadA 1btc
out
1blockchainfranky1address 1.0btc
1blockchainDooMadaddress 0btc
<both need to sign>

you PLAY with B
in
bc1qLNchannelfranky1DoomadB 1btc
out
1blockchainfranky1address 0btc
1blockchainDooMadaddress 1btc
<both need to sign>

now heres the flaw in your thinking.. PLAY does not mean full control
although you get to PLAY with the AMOUNTS of B.. guess what we both need to SIGN B
again for emphasis

although i PLAY with A and you PLAY with B..  we both need to sign A and both need to sign B

learn factories. hint.
a factory (multisig) receives blockchain confirmed funds.
a multisig locks those funds. and the group agree which nodes get which amount.
channels are open using a OFF CHAIN tx from the factory
when you close the channel its not broadcast to the blockchain. its 'out' is back to the factory whereby the factory updates the lock and thn re sends the funds out to agred channels

this concept is so that users dont need to run full bitcoin core nodes to check the blockchain when setting up a channel/closing a channel. they can just check (and trust) the factory. thus allow users to use phone apps to pay for coffee instead of having to
take their laptops into starbucks to pay for coffee and check the blockchain using their full node..

so. channels will not be a "you have 100% control of your funds"..
LN wont be a no locks thing..
your funds are locked. not just by a channel. but also by an outer ring (factory)

yes the latest concept is to not need to broadcast back to the blockchain. but to cycle funds back to a factory. and the only way to do that is to extend the locks of a factory beyond the locks of a channel so that people cant easily exit the factory.

your missing the even bigger picture the bitcoin cash is just distractions. while your eyes are looking at an altcoin. your not reviewing bitcoin core code.

there have been core devs that have always wanted altcoins to win. Luke Jr loves him some merge mined coins. Gmax loves him some monero and zcash. pietre wuille loves him some atomic swaps.. they have all been saying bitcoins protocol is broke and unscalable and all want popl to us side srvices and hop people then exit holding altcoins when they settle out of LN. the whole kardashian drama of ver is just the social distraction while the core devs slide in their code into bitcoin core network which does not help true bitcoincoiners. but will make the fiat lovers salivate and orgasm at the prospects it will give them

what i do love is th propaganda that LN is needed to avoid bitcoin turning into server farms.. but guess what. peoples phone apps to buy coffee at starbucks are not going to run full bitcoin nodes to monitor onchain broadcasts. so LN will be for coffee lovers, using light wallets which dont verify the blackchain. which then connect and trust servers to monitor the onchain broadcasts..

androind devices are not designed for mining. it would kill th battery and fry the CPU

is the OP stuck in 2012, back when webbrowser extensions / home mining was a temporary thing

honestly if people think they can mine bitcoin using a phone.. have obviously not done thier research

google isnt stopping anything real.. its stopping the scams that pretend they are mining but really they are spyware and trojans

it doesnt take long.
imagine when a bank note changes design or material of the 'paper'... it doesnt take that long to circulate out the new 'currency' and then set a date when the old bank notes are to not be accepted as currency.
its the same thing. with monetary reform

bitcoin onchain is a push paymnt system not needing anyone else to sign to authorise it. just the sender

but if people are told that bitcoins onchain is broke and cant scale and the only way to use btc as a payment system is to use accounts called channels where by it needs a counter party to sign along with you. and then when you want to pay someone. random people need to be online and sign that they will route you payment.. AND the end recipient needs to be online to sign to receive the payment.  

all that makes bitcoins seem less 'decentralsied' because it relies on so many others and so many hops skips and jumps, conditions and trms. and even penalties to do it. which is not the original ethos of bitcoin.



now imagine governments ignord the core devs speach about blockchain being broke.. and instead governments made a hyprledger of multiple sidechains for different regions. that way regions dont have to validate whole world data of one chain. but just a smaller cluster of users. thus more managable.

imagine it like a litecoin blockchain for america. another litecoin blockchain for europe. another one for africa. another for asia. and they all audit total circulation to a master chaiin

imagine this hyper ledger was shorter blocktime. and also the fee's were alot less then bitcoins onchain fee. thus imagine it as something that emulates bitcoin. but faster and cheaper and without the propoganda drama devs are dreaming up aout LN is the only future. guess what. people will use something that is more distributed than old fiat. and cheaper and faster than bitcoin.

oh and remember this new hyprledgerfiat will become the thing that new monetary reforms accept for mminimum wage, tax, and court fines. thus becoming legal tender. all auditable in the same way that checking a block explorer can be done so people can see the currency circulation numbers thus even better than old fiat.

yep.
blockchain can scale. and also blockchain has a feature called consensus. but consensus was bypassed and a mandatory split occured to force through an upgrade that only garnered 35% acceptance prior to all the social drama.

if you want to know the devs who are paid that were top of the dev social campaign to stifle btc.
Luke JR - core dev moderates the proposals and IRC development channel  paid by blockstream
Pietr wuiile - core dev programmed segwit, which is in their eyes an requirement for the corporat concept of LN  paid by blockstream
Gregmaxwell - core dev and founder of blockstream
rusty russell - dev of LN paid by blockstream
their are many others. but these 4 are the front runners

all these 4 have said BTC's blockcahin is broke, all paid via blockstream which got funded by DCG.
othr people on other teams also paid by DCG but by other shells

1. the price was not a crash. it was a correction. the $20k spike was never sustainable and was just pure hype bubble that was always suppose to pop and correct. this level of $6k-$9k is more accurate stable sustainable level. if you cut a line from november 2017 to march2018. you will see the natural level of sustainable value

now some shocking things
2. the bitcoin core bitcoin cash are 2 sides of the same coin.. ver and theymos play the same social forum drama rolls like a mirror image.
ver plays theymos's mirror
wright plays adam backs mirror
samason mow plays jihans mirror..
but all are part for the same family if you follow the money and research

3. the august 2017 bilateral split of bitcoin core and bitcoin cash was instigatd by bankers. who with high invstments of over $100m coerced devs to made a roadmap to stifle bitcoin cores blockchain innovation and push the social drama of 'blockchains are broken and cant scale' and the only future is co-managed accounts called channels. whereby commercial companies can set up hubs and earn fee's.. as that is how the devs that were paid were suppose to offer the investors a service to allow the investors a return on their investment.

to implement it they had to play a very twisted double side 3 card trick on the community.. they played it well

4. but the article is pointing at the wrong whipping pupetmaster of the investors.. the real whippers are DCG.
https://dcg.co/portfolio/#b
take note of : blockchain, bloq, blockstream, btcc

 if you look at the history of all the drama of august 2017, everything from UASF, segwit 2x, cash and sgwit1x
samson mow (UASF) got paid by btcc and blockstream which done one campaign to start the ball rolling. then there was Bloq, who done another campaign and then ver and partners who are part of blockchain.info done the third.

yep thats right ver is part of the same game.

it was all one big mascarade to make it appear as free choice. but instead was a mandatory bilateral split. anyone against it got falsely pushed to another coin and were being told its the original satoshi vision.. oh, and giving people fre coin via th split as a bribe to distract them from disagreeing with a mandatory split. (decentralised fre choice should never result in a mandatory bilateral split. a real satoshi ethos is consensus. where by cor should have realised they only had 35% and went back to the drawing board and found a new reconsideration proposal/compromise that the community would agree on without the 2017 drama/events)

5. but lets get back to the article.. DCG is the puppet master. they have fingers in the pie of mastercard. jp morgan, US trasury amungst othrs.. trying to write an article to do a social meandering mindtwist to make it sound like a insurance company is a pupet master doesnt make sense. yet those involved in mastercard, central banks and treasury does make sense

summary
bitcoin core and bitcoin cash are 2 sides of the same coin create as a false illusion of choice, which pretty much started moving btc away from the original whitepaper ethos, when it became "core" in 2013-2014. there are many quotes from the paid devs shouting how blockchain technology is broke and cant scale.

in my view.. no one should own the brand "bitcoin" and so with core controlling the btc protocol it should be branded as bitcoin core. not to illustrate or to hand core the network. but to highlight that they do control it. and thus hope it wakes people up enough to demand that core sort themelves out and stop saying btc protocol is broke. and instead ask other teams to work on the network.
(its a bit of reverse psychology. call it bitcoin core. pople wake up and realsie core control it. to then kick core in the but to fix the issues or move aside to avoide th network being officially branted bitcoin core)
even the drma of cash shouting they are bitcoin was a mindgame by DCG by hoping it would make the community want to hand the brand bitcoin to core just to not leet anyone else have it..
but no one should own it

anyways
anyone saying that any team thats not paid by DCG or opposes the radmap must be an attacker, obviously is against decentralisation and doesnt want the DCG family to lose control

cellard
what if i told you that ver is already funded by the same group as blockstream. where the whole core/cash is jusst kardashian drama of trying to get people to fanboy either kloe or kylie. act as if they are different and they fight, where the underlying fact is that its just strengthening the central brand of kardashians.
DCG want brand bitcoin. and by making it into a 2 choice(single option) then it gives the false impression of choice.

after all.. tell me a proper independant full validating full archival node software that is not funded by the same group

its all a drama
Ver is playing the theymos mirror - forum moderator, mouthpiece
wright is playing the A Back mirror - 'i was involved in its creation'
jihan is playing the samson mow mirror - mining brainchchilds of asia

excuse the pun.. but both 2 sides of the same coin.

EG
get kloe to say she is a real kardashian.
get kylie to say "ill sue kloe because im the real kardashian'

in the end the family now own all trademarks and property of 'kardashian'

now shaking off the drama.. peoples mindset should be
no one owns brand bitcoin. like no one owns the dollar.
there is US dollar, canadian dollar

cores protocol - america
cash protocol - canada

and thats why i say
bitcoin cash network/coin
bitcoin core network/coin

yes i say the btc network is CORE as my subtle way to reverse psychology people out of thinking that core should own btc. because at the moment anything not core gets treated as not part of the network and needs to fork off. so hopefully by doing the rverse psychology of treating the network as core owned. people wake up and stop defending core as the owners. and thus let other teams come onboard to RE-decentralise the protocol upgrade and maintenance processes.

its not actually big whales.. its lack of liquidity/volume and also large spreads. (see bitstamp image example i grabbed while writing this)

markets can stop having orderlines that are like
$8203.43
$8202.18
and instead have
$8203.4302
$8203.4301
then the price of btc wont rise by $1 by small fish that have an order line of under 1btc per orderline
as you can s below. somone can move the price by $1 for less than $1300.. meaning the 'cap' moves by $17million for only $1.3thousand

actually i do inform people about exchanges. i even highlighted exchangs that do dodgy crap with false claims of "we been hacked"
i have told exchanges about effective ways to control funds without needing privatekeys on their wbservers.
i have told users to not use exchanges as wallets/banks. but to deposit, do trade, withdraw
i have done alot of stuff over the years..

but what you dont realise is that you only spot something thats seems meaningful to you at the time.
EG (analogy) ever think before buying a car, its unique you dont see it on the streets much.. but as soon as you buy it you start noticing the same brand/model more often on the streets. and you get angry that your not the trend setter you thought you were


when you have put your love and soul into something and made it your dream... you will start to notice when others talk about it or have it mor often..
my point:
maybe its you ignoring my other posts about other content but when you see me talk on a LN topic, you think its all i talk about.. without you realising that it was you that clicked on the specific topic, and if i happen to be on that topic.. suddenly its my fault??

same way you ignore how i laugh and facepalm ver and craig wright.. as its obvious that you think im team cash because you dont see me point out issues of other topics. Ver is not a programmer. and craig wright is a scammer. they are actually both paid by the same investors as blockstream and the whole bitcoin cash drama is just the same drama as the kardashians. two sides of the same family. shown as fighting each other and arguing. but behind the scenes they are just centralising everying into their rich family brand


your too blinkered by the utopia of lightning and you absolutely hate it when people point out its not the utopian advert that garnered your interest in it.
i see many people who see the 2018 utopian propaganda of both LN and bitcoin. by using the now broken ethos of 2009. these people think they have found the fountain of youth, utopia. they thinnk they have woken up from their deep financial sleep and finaly found their freedom..
but then when i point out the issues that need addressing due to devs deciding to stifle the inovation/revolution.. its me that gets the hostility and the devs get to continu to do the shoddy crap they have done.. (facepalm)

my mindset is to be brutaly honest about the flaws to ensure people are not hyped into a utopian dream.. that way 3 things happen
1. issues get fixed
2. people who ar fooled by the utopia. realise early on that its devs that have stifled the revolution and as such also help to push point 1.
3. help people learnearly so people dont learn the hard way and end up just calling bitcoin a gimmick.

p.S
summary
if i see new topics where people are talking about LN utopia. be prepared to see me post in that topic about its flaws. if you dont like it or if you have already read what flaws exist. then instead of telling me to shut up. realise im addressing the utopian believer crowd. and those that do tell me to shut up usually are the ones still believing LN is bitcoins sole future to scaling.
so if you dont like me pointing out flaws. simply move onto another topic

you say they need to know how lightning works. but the glossy utopia leaflet illustrations is only showing perfect scenario..
if there are loop holes/flaws. guess what. people will use them. its fre money they'll get after all. so its not me being extreme to point it out. its me revealing the less then utopian perfect scenario

and here is your mis understanding.

my premiss is not that Lightning should be thrown away.
my premiss is the 'lightning utopian perfect and only scaling option for bitcoin' mindset should be thrown away..emphasis should not be advertised as a bitcoin sole solution.

people need to stop over promoting over promising and treating LN as utopia. and instead realise its
just a side service for a niche user case..
not a feature to make bitcoin great (other coins use it too so its not a unique selling point for bitcoin)
not asunlimited, frictionless easy, decentralised as promised(hint your not going to take laptop /desktop to stabuck so LN will ber server<-lightwallet based, and funds nneed other party authorisation)

and then get the devs to actually care about bitcoins mainnet protocol scaling and bringing back the featurs/ethos that made bitcoin revolutionary in 2009-2013