Because all this digital coin thing is bullshit. When it becomes relevant, it will be corporate owned (isn't it already?) and it will be the new mainstream politics/economics, not the "REVOLUTION!". Just like Facebook/Google are the internet nowadays. Very far from that liberate and revolutionary thing, right?

It isn't very revolutionary - it's a capitalist system through and through. That has absolutely nothing to do with the technical details of why Lightning Network won't work.

I never said "lightning network" won't work. I said that it doesn't matter. If bitcoin someday becomes a thing, it will just behave like dollar, nothing less. With more technology, someone or some corporation will find a way to concentrate more power. Then someone will come up with an idea of a new way to do transactions. Algorithms don't fix social issues. People fix social issues.

In response to my message saying that Lightning Network is only a year or so away, you said:

> But it may probably not be a solution or take a couple of decades, like the scalability of Elon Musk's projects.

But OK, if you meant something other than what you actually said, fine.

> Bitcoin will never become the "world wide common digital currency": it's deflationary in the long term, very volatile int he short term, and transactions are expensive and slow. Maybe some other cryptocurrency could, but not bitcoin.

You said that Lightning network would drop transaction costs thus making bitcoin workable. I said it would do nothing because the problem is not technical but social. But I don't mind if you understood a different thing.

Bitcoin could be workable, and be a world wide common digital currency, without starting a revolution, you realise. A dollar that I can send to people without a bank being involved is still a useful concept.

I agree with you. I just don't think the banks and their private governmental armies will allow it to happen freely. And yes they can stop it. They probably are behing its creation, not a fake japanese alter-ego.

For starters the people pushing lightning are religiously opposing any increase in the block size. For lightening to even be viable on a world wide scale the block size will need to be increased.

The point of Lightning is that transactions don't go on the blockchain until they need to be settled - payment channels could be open for months or years without being settled if there's no need to access the underlying currency. If everyone uses Lightning Network for the vast, vast majority of transactions (and there's no reason not to), the only times most people would ever have to put something on the blockchain is when the entity on the other end of their payment channel disappears, or they have more currency than they've ever had before.

The issue, if anything, is exactly the opposite - that there'll be little incentive to mine without enough transactions on the chain, and the security of the network will come crashing down.

Lightning Network also provides for decentralised, trustless currency exchanges - so the inflexibility of one blockchain will finally not matter much. You could pay someone in bitcoin and the other person could receive litecoin as easily as you can do similar things with a credit card today.

You haven't addressed my comment you are just blabbering. In order to open and close lightening channels on chain transactions are required. Heck in order to protect yourself from fraud in the lightening model you need to be able to do on chain transactions.

Nothing you said addresses the concern that the people pushing lightening network the hardest are religiously opposed to raising the block size which will make it impossible to deploy lightening on a world wide scale because there won't be enough on chain transaction space to open up these lightening channels.

I'd have to have opened a grand total of one channel over the past four years, personally - I have a suspicion that most people do not regularly gain more income than they've ever had before, as they spend it at a broadly similar rate as they gain it.

In addition to this, as I said, the fact that Lightning Network is a protocol that allows cross-blockchain transactions between any two chains supporting Lightning Network means that if, as you say, Bitcoin has severe problems, everyone will just jump ship to another currency, as there will be far fewer switching costs.

Lightning network design is akin to tacking a vacuum tube communication system onto the outside of a defunct slow steam locomotive rail system.

It's nonsensical, because you might as well just design an entirely new protocol and token network (which is essnetialy what the lightning network is, and there's no reason to tie it to an existing cryptocoin ledger unless you're trying to improve the antiquated design which coincidently you have coin units in).

The issue is that Lightning Network depends on the ability to settle transactions in a double-spend-resistant cryptocurrency in order to work at all - the fraud resistance scheme depends on it, otherwise there is no way to prove that (a) money hasn't been created out of thin air and (b) two parties with a payment channel between them agree on the state of their money.

If you can successfully build a Lightning Network like system without a blockchain, please do.