heck read the concerns on the link doomad provided.
Yes, for once I'm actually inclined to agree with something you've said.
I hope everyone reading this understands the importance that you read
genuine issues from
real people, rather than franky1's ridiculous made-up campfire stories. The simple fact is, most losses on LN come from user error. So do make sure you fully understand what you're doing before you use it. But it avoids the situation where you're likely to suffer a total wipeout
because of something someone else did, as is the case with custodians. The responsibility is yours. Then, once people have gained a decent understanding, they'll know that, while it's not a perfect solution, it's still by far the most viable option for those who want to use Bitcoin as a currency and spend it regularly. Naturally, for those who are more of an accumulator/hodler, then it won't be particularly useful to them.
As always, franky1 believes me to be a blind fanatic, but this is not so. I'm fully aware that Lightning has issues. But sane and logical people will recognise that every shortcoming in the Lightning Network is a weakness that hasn't been introduced to the base protocol. Whereas franky1's desired direction is to inject every possible compromise directly into Bitcoin and weaken it. He's clearly a moron. Pay him no mind.
as for doomad trying to be your body guard. he has for years now been hyping up the services because even he know trying to just be your own node and hope for good working routing without a hub/spoke, just wont work.
I'm not a bodyguard. Merely a fact-checker. Dispelling abject lies is not "hyping up" Lightning. I just call out the bullshit where I see it. I'm not making any unrealistic claims.
I'll state categorically that each user will have a different experience with routing transactions, as it will largely depend on how many people they know and how many they are likely to transact with. If you know a whole bunch of people who use LN regularly, you're probably going to find it easier to avoid relying on any large "hubs". But for people like franky1 (who probably has no friends because no one could spend more than half a minute in a room with him without feeling the urge to punch him square in the face due to him being inherently unlikable), they might struggle to route transactions.
Is that why you hate LN, franky1? Does it do a great job of highlighting the issue where you're a repulsive waste of oxygen that people go out of their way to avoid? Does it constantly remind you that you have no friends because you drove them all away by being so unbelievably obnoxious?
But anyway, the point is, some people
will rely on larger hubs until there are more users. But even having several large hubs is still an improvement over Bitcoin's early history. Back in 2012/2013, a huge number of people primarily used the Mt.Gox exchange. Some of us saw the warning signs and tried to warn people, but many just didn't listen. The collapse of that one website caused absolute devastation to thousands of people. And because it was fully custodial and centralised, the vast majority of the victims are still waiting for recompense all these years later. Imagine how many affected users, due to that experience, vowed to never use Bitcoin again. It was a major catastrophe that highlighted the issues with centralised fully-custodial services. Some would argue we still haven't learned the lessons it should have taught us. So... even
-IF- the Lightning Network was as bad as franky1 claims it is, it still couldn't possibly be as bad as Gox or any of the present day exchanges or webwallets. I don't believe Lightning will ever become fully custodial and I don't believe it would ever centralise into one giant hub that could fail. So again, the responsibility is yours to use it wisely. As such, I'm satisfied that it should continue to be developed and given space to grow and evolve.
