the most interesting detail from the above article is that lightning network payments are capped at 0.042 btc. i didn't know that. i wonder if that's gonna disappoint or excite people.
Thanks, didn't know about the cap. For me it's a good thing. Lightning Network should never be used for large and important transactions like salary, but for microtransactions it's great, if it works like expected.
Been trying to explain this for months, but it gets drowned out in a sea of "you want mining to die, LN to send all transactions and centralise Bitcoin"
And you've been no help at all, d5000. But in fairness, I had no idea a cap on Lightning transaction amounts was being touted.
For larger transactions being scalable I have more hopes in sidechains and other "sharding" techniques, but I know that they are not trivial to realize.
Regarding miners I agree with the article. I think LN can give us more use cases for Bitcoin if we don't cap the actual on-chain transaction density too hard.
I hope you are also going to begin to understand that shrinking transactions is the only scaling paradigm possible (whereas you've been another voice in the crowd shouting about the un-scalable blocksize increase paradigm).
Changing to Schnorr signatures (instead of the current ECDSA sigs) and changing to a more efficient transaction encoding scheme could turn 300,000 tx/day into 400,000 tx/day on-chain. More can be done, there's plenty of true on-chain scaling ideas on the shelf.
That's the responsible way to do it, we can think about doing the high-wire dangerous blocksize increases once there's actually a safety net to break any falls.
