Probably. However, people either don't understand, either don't care or just fine with that. I am "just fine with that". I see it as a service people can use if they want to. And an useful one (when it'll work) and one that should get the overload, hence help with the scalability. I see it as a better option than another fixed block size.
i see LN as a niche service outside the bitcoin network and something that only gamblers faucet raiders and multispenders per day will benefit from.(if they ever sort out the issues)
i see it sitting in the same 'layer' as coinbase.
LN is not a bitcoin feature. its a separate network/service and will be used by people holding multiple currencies
however LN is being promoted as "the" bitcoin feature that everyone will have to use as its "the" scaling solution and problem solver for the bitcoin network.
LN is buggy. i have informed them of many bugs and although they wont admit the source they have tweaked a few things to stop a few things.
but if you ever happen to listen into some of the hidden chatter between devs and their banking partners. and if you ever learned about the banker contract with devs from november 2016 november 2017 and its true purpose of how the bankers are to eventually make ROI of their investments (phase 1 segwit phase 2 LN) you will see a shocking roadmap of central control and deception that is turning bitcoins open community ethos of what people thought bitcoin was about in 2009. into a future banker fortknox replication of what happened to gold a century ago
in short
too many people are promoting that LN is the central network everyone will need to use. rather than a side service outside the network for those niches that may want to use it
the 1495 tx block you mentioned would only be 540kb. if segwit did not exist
Here I need a clarification: I think that you counted only bc1 addreses as SegWit, while many (me included) use 3* addresses for SegWit purpose, to avoid issues with various services that don't handle SegWit yet.
Also, I know that SegWit is not as widely used as it should be. But hey, it's only some 1 year old?
actually i was very anal
there is actually a difference between a legacy 3* multisig and a segwit 3*
and i did factor that in.
OMG saved 40kb in base but added 102kb into witness
It looks indeed like a waste, but again, you may have missed 3* addresses (which I know, may or may not be SegWit).
Also, on the bright side, it still saves space
where it matters.
as i said if they were all pre segwit formats. we could fit in 60k of more transactions in and still have the same 606kb block as you shown.
again legacy segwitmix of the 606kb block = transaction size average 405byte
de-evolving the segwit transactions to their reciprical legacy format retaining input and output and signature count
= a 540kb block of same transaction numbers. = 361 byte average transaction size
which means if the (base block) was happy to hold all 606kb would result in 1678 transaction simply by devolving the segwits into legacy
think of it this way.
a FISH bowl of fish(inspired by your name)
a lgacy fish is 3.6cm long from nose to tail
segwit does not make fishes leaner to allow more fish into the bowl.
segwit cuts off the tail and puts the tails into another fishbowl. but now the tail-less fish need to be fatter to balance and able to continue swimming. so then if you reattach their tail would be 4cm long each
meaning if you looked at the 2 bowls as a whole. each fish is 4cm long because of segwit.
the deception is the glass wall making people think the tail bowl does not exist. and tails should not be counted.
but on the mantle piece the bowls sit on. the weight does matter. and both bowls do count
(but on the hard drive the 2merkles are stored on. the megabytes do matter and both merkles do count)
and when you calulate the weight on the mantle/actual mb on the hard drive vs the number of fish/transactions
the cutting the tail but bloating the fish does not = more fish
if you think its still good to celebrate the OP's title that 2.26mb only = a couple hundred transactions.. then you've missed all the issues with "2.26mb for only a couple hundred transactions".. to me thats NOT something to be proud of
I guess that we look at the bright side and you don't
In my opinion, the great thing is that we have again blocks that are not full and the fees are most of the time very low. And when LN will be ready, then I'd think to throw out a competition, since people seems love them. Until then, I know, there are plenty of altcoins that can handle more transactions per day than Bitcoin. So what? We'll get better
2.26mb for only a couple hundred transaction is a positive! ! !
im facepalming right now
as for your hope for LN. well thats the reliance of people hoping for moving their funds to then lock them into fatories and take away bitcoins ethos of a payment network. and thus destroy bitcoins revolutionary concept. and let people think the only way to pay is co-signed accounts.. (backward thinking)
remember LN is not a bitcoin feature, its a separate network. many coins will use LN. its not a sole feature of bitcoin and is not promoting bitcoin. its killing bitcoin and the propaganda of saying its part of bitcoin is purely to make LN famous while saying bitcoin is broke.
they are just pretending its a bitcoin thing to get attention on LN(aswell as investment)