[agorabinary]

Ever since LN was first proposed, skeptics have asserted problem after problem as an insurmountable obstacle. And time after time they have been proven wrong.

If you really think that big blocks solve anything, then by all means just use Bcash - though of course Bcash itself is melting down into separate forks as we speak..

[CyberDildonics]

> If you really think that big blocks solve anything, then by all means just use Bcash - though of course Bcash itself is melting down into separate forks as we speak..

Try to look beyond all the censored /r/bitcoin propaganda - bitcoin cash and other cryptocurrencies scale fine with increased blocksizes.

Bitcoin cash is not melting down in separate forks at all. The increased blocksize obviously works without problems and has nothing to do with forking in the first place.

There was never a reason to restrict the blocksize of btc except to sell a complicated and unnecessary promise of a solution to a non-problem. Everyone outside of the /r/bitcoin censorship and propaganda bubble can see this.

[CryptoPunk]

That's an over-generalization and concluding from it that LN will fulfil all of its promises is characteristic of the kind of blinders-on thinking within the Bitcoin Core community right now.

Skeptics have thus far been proven right that LN doesn't work as a full substitute for on-chain transactions, and its advocates have continually had to push back the promised date of a usable product.

Big blocks in an age of 30 Mb/s internet connections can and will work. 3,000 tps on-chain was the original scaling plan for Bitcoin. Fortunately, Bitcoin (Cash) carries on that plan.