there are certain people whose position is so entrenched and their agenda so obvious that any opinion they come up with is effectively worthless as you know it's compromised before you bother to read it, which i never would.
I honestly don't know if jonald_fyookball is paid by anyone (Jihan or Roger, for example). However, he has never given the impression to me of a paid shill, more of a very convinced person. (This impression may be wrong, naive, or whatever.)
I consider the "big blocker" stance not a
scam, but a valid stance. I personally - after having informed myself about its implications and consequneces - don't share it. Big blocks could work, in my opinion, only in two cases:
1) we have a magical quantum leap in hardware capacity and internet technology in the coming years;
2) that "big blocks" are accomplished with some sort of sharding (dividing the load of validating blockchain contents to several groups of nodes). A big-blocker-friendly sharding technique could be extension blocks.
Regarding LN, I think some of Big blocker's fears regarding centralization are valid. But the outcome depends mostly of ourselves, the Bitcoin community.
We can make LN a success, and we can accomplish it to stay
decentralized.
But it wouldn't come "on its own". We have to fight any attempts to establish hubs of more than ~100.000 users, because these hubs would be a systemic risk - like big mining pools are (Big hubs are more likely to be able to revert channel states massively).
So we have to make people conscious of that
we ourselves, the Bitcoin users, are building the Lightning Network, and not "some sort of unknown group of businesses". We are those who decide if we want to be lazy and only open a channel to our favourite exchange, or to open various channels with respected community members, for example.
I am a bit skeptic, but I think if the Bitcoin community really wants a decentralized LN, we will get it.
