[rvz]

The whole point of Bitcoin is to be a peer-to-peer electronic cash system and that all these payments are recorded on an append-only, transparent and distributed ledger (called a blockchain) for everyone to see.

Lightning is the opposite. A centralized, layer 2 off-chain system that goes against the point of Bitcoin. That is even before I even mentioned why it can't even use it as a currency either.

[binibus]

You are actually using two arguments that aren't really that related. What I think you're saying (tell me if I'm wrong) is something like:

LN doesn't fit BTC core values and BTC without LN doesn't work => BTC doesn't work

But that's a non sequitur, even if it's true that LN doesn't fit BTC values (which is debatible) and BTC can't stand on its own (which is also not clear) that doesn't imply that BTC doesn't work. Mainly because there are many people out there that see BTC only as a tool that fills their needs better than the alternatives, and can't care less about the inner philosophy. For those people BTC+LN works perfectly. You could say "Ok BTC can work but not without ditching it's values". But then you should provide some arguments about why can't exist a L2 solution that conserves those values.

[rvz]

> LN doesn't fit BTC core values and BTC without LN doesn't work => BTC doesn't work

Strawman. I did not say it 'doesn't work'. I am saying it is pointless to discuss about 'decentralization' whilst telling people to use a system that is centralized by design which defeats the purpose of Bitcoin. Not even the transactions are transparent on the Lightning Network as it is off-chain.

> even if it's true that LN doesn't fit BTC values (which is debatible) and BTC can't stand on its own (which is also not clear) that doesn't imply that BTC doesn't work.

It is all true: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/aba062

> Mainly because there are many people out there that see BTC only as a tool that fills their needs better than the alternatives, and can't care less about the inner philosophy.

You do realise there are more people not using it for actual on-chain payments and are just using it for hodling and speculation?

Another certainty is that on-chain Bitcoin payments are many times slower than VISA, and Mastercard, so why would merchants bother with accepting Bitcoin in supermarkets and groceries especially when the majority of users are not using it for payments and are only hodling it? No where in the Bitcoin whitepaper was it supposed to be a 'store of value' used for speculation.

Not only it tells us that on-chain payments with Bitcoin has failed, it also means that if one was to suggest 'use the Lightning Network' as the workaround for this failure of Bitcoin being unable to be scaled up, then the 'decentralization' argument there is null and void.