[hackerlight]

> It's not a failure because Bitcoin tanked (relatively), it's a failure because Bitcoin tanking was and will always be a significant risk.

A lot of the risk can be hedged by custodians, so I don't agree.

The reason it should fail for transactions is because Bitcoin sucks for transactions. Few people will prefer slow, irreversible and expensive transactions.

[plebianRube]

Lightning is popular because few prefer slow transactions.

El Salvador primarily uses lightning network, same network Strike uses for instant cross border payments.

[hackerlight]

Of course, I stand corrected about that.

So, aside from irreversibility of transactions, what is preventing adoption?

[spiralx]

It doesn't even use that, the Chivo wallet only uses LN for external transactions, everything else is a plain old centralised app.

[plebianRube]

I don't have time to thoroughly research the topic and come back to you, so maybe you can do some leg work.

But I do know people over estimate what can be accomplished in a year and underestimate what can be accomplished in 10.

[MrMan]

also correlation doesn't equal causation, the Overton window, etc

[adastra22]

Setting up lightning channels are still slow, expensive, and worse require hot, online wallets.

[VMG]

Those that need unstoppable transactions are willing to pay the 10'000 satoshi fee on a transaction with arbitrary amount.

[mrguyorama]

Which users actually need and want irreversible transactions. What's the utility of a system that doesn't let you combat fraud?

[yellowapple]

A system with a middleman capable of reversing transactions enables fraud. See also: the folks behind Flipper Zero being permanently robbed of more than a million USD thanks to PayPal's whims (as the latest of a long list of high-profile cases of PayPal taking vendors' money and running).

[VMG]

people targeted by law enforcement or secret police need unstoppable transactions