[pkulak]

Lightning is a horrible kludge to deal with the fact that Bitcoin is terrible at being a currency. It essentially boils down to this process:

1. Pay huge fees to take your money off the blockchain.

2. Whiz it around a new, totally independent, centralized network where you need an always-on connection to anyone you're paying or receiving from and need to trust any intermediaries you're using, with brand new fees for every transaction and even at rest (so you can pay a "watchtower" to help make sure you don't get cheated).

3. Pay more huge fees to put your money back on the blockchain when you're done.

4. Wonder how you got yourself into a situation where you have all the disadvantages of Visa and Bitcoin, with none of the advantages of either.

We already have existing coins, like Nano, that can handle transactions instantly, for zero fees, and with nearly no energy use, on the main chain.

[rawtxapp]

Channel factories will open/close many channels at once, so you'll only pay a fraction of the blockchain transaction cost. It has the advantages of Bitcoin's security and p2p network speed.

Security and trust are a lot more important for currency, nano doesn't have that. It has easily been spammed [1]. It barely has a market cap of ~1B$ and has never recovered to it's 2017 prices, so it's not even remotely close to being an ideal candidate for a country's currency.

1: https://www.coindesk.com/nanos-network-flooded-spam-nodes-ou...

[pkulak]

Eh, it got spammed and transactions slowed to BTC level (but still with no fees) for a couple months. Spam is a solvable problem. A hard limit of 4 transactions per second isn't.

Ya know what doesn't have security and trust? Putting your entire country on two custodial wallets and having all your citizen's wealth in the hands of two foreign companies (channel factoried or no). No one in El Salvador actually owns any Bitcoin. It baffles me how anyone could get on board with the original ideals of BTC, then defend what's happening now.