The Great Bitcoin-Lightning Network Swindle
Here is what the BTC maximalists never understood: Technology.
Yet, technology continues to advance, despite those who oppose progress, innovation, better currencies, and improvement.
Bitcoin is scaling on-chain and the Bitcoin that succeeded in that is Bitcoin Cash.
By Moore’s Law, Bitcoin scales to meet global demand for permissionless peer-to-peer cash, but it will take a few years more than what was anticipated, and not in the Bitcoin BTC version either.
We explore why Lightning was destined to fail and how Blockstream effectively used it to impede Bitcoin’s progress towards becoming the leading Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash solution, as originally intended.
We also examine how the Lightning Network whitepaper justified the discontinuation of Bitcoin as a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.
The Lightning Whitepaper Red Flags
The entire Lightning whitepaper is established on Core’s theories for Bitcoin, with every user of the network running the software (non-mining node) that allegedly enhances decentralization of the network.
However, this was not the original premise. Satoshi specifically explained the design was not about everyone running a node but letting users be users.
The Bitcoin whitepaper explains this in Chapter 8:
The Lightning Whitepaper Disregards Progress
If we use an average of 300 bytes per bitcoin transaction and assumed unlimited block sizes, an equivalent capacity to peak Visa transaction volume of 47,000/tps would be nearly 8 gigabytes per Bitcoin block, every ten minutes on average. Continuously, that would be over 400 terabytes of data per year.
LN whitepaper
The whitepaper of the Lightning Network was released in January 2016, and over the years, all the criticism directed towards it has turned out to be valid.
During the scaling debate, nobody was talking about lifting the blocksize limit entirely but increasing it to 8MB and following the advance of technology in the coming years.
Yet, the Lightning Network tries to build its case by extremizing the arguments of the side that wanted on-chain scaling by 1000 times of what was proposed (8MB).
While it is possible that Moore’s Law will continue indefinitely, and the computational capacity for nodes to cost-e ectively compute multi-gigabyte blocks may exist in the future, it is not a certainty.
LN whitepaper
In this instance, the Lightning paper appears to be struggling to justify a solid thesis by attempting to dispute Satoshi’s grounds for Bitcoin’s scalability.
By Moore’s Law, we can expect hardware speed to be 10 times faster in 5 years and 100 times faster in 10. Even if Bitcoin grows at crazy adoption rates, I think computer speeds will stay ahead of the number of transactions.
Satoshi Nakamoto (source)
The Lightning whitepaper’s premise is based on the hypothesis that a trend’s observation and projection will ultimately falter.
Has Moore’s Law failed as maximalists claim?
Moore’s Law Is 100% Valid
The arguments we locate solely on the side of the BTC maximalists seem entirely biased and unfounded, which raises suspicions over the reasons they are published online.
Progress is probably something most people in Bitcoin BTC can’t apprehend, even after having spent an eternity in tech.
From bytes, we moved on to Kilobytes to Megabytes and Terabytes.
Petabytes is the future, yet the BTC Core team of devs seems to think that sustaining a 1MB limit enforced by Satoshi as a temporary measure fourteen years ago is still relevant in 2024.
Here’s how Moore’s Law still works, and it will keep working in the foreseeable future:
Yet here’s where the BTC maximalists (Blockstream/Core shills) deceive the public about everything over several years, to justify the stagnation of Bitcoin BTC.
Yes, Moore’s law is relevant, and all of these posts on the Bitcoin forum are an attempt to manipulate public opinion.
Technology did follow Moore’s Law, and reality disregarded the lies and propaganda of the BTC maximalists.
These individuals are just two examples among hundreds of people with key positions of influence and plan to secure and sustain Core’s position as the team that dominates Bitcoin’s developments.
This was always a power struggle, and Core/Blockstream after achieving control in 2015 never planned to relinquish it.
Moore’s law is valid 12 years after Satoshi cited this observation, and Bitcoin proceeded with increasing the blocksize limit to 32MB following technological progress while BTC stagnated and shrunk its utility.
The entire Lightning paper is full of discrepancies and irrelevant theoretical discussion, ignoring the purpose of Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash, and in the end, instating a complex and irrelevant second layer scheme that was never needed in the first place.
The same Lightning whitepaper claims that for the sidechain to succeed the block limit would have to be raised to 133MB.
Again, this paper was published in January 2016.
Here’s the current trajectory of Seagate HDs and the roadmap for the next 3 years with 50+ TB SSD drives a reality:
Meanwhile, once again, we have to mention that the argument was to raise the blocksize to 8MB and follow the latest technological trend.
Bitcoin Cash is the side of the 2017 fork that proceeded with scaling and upgraded the block size limit initially to 8MB and later to 32MB.
When conditions emerge, the blocksize limit of Bitcoin Cash will be ready to automatically adjust to adoption with the upcoming ABLA upgrade of 2024.
Since the Lightning Network requires a 133MB block size limit, and with the SegWit “hack” BTC can only have a 4MB maximum, it appears there is a vast gap here between ambitions and reality.
And, yet, this is the solution Core/Blockstream enforced, and more or less, here is exactly how it all progressed:
Everything the maximalists have told you so far was a lie.
In Conclusion
In the next decade, we will be talking about Petabyte HDs and much better internet speed and higher outbound capacity that will also enable vast progress in communications and internet platforms.
Within this transformative futuristic environment, Bitcoin Core devs will be stuck in an alternative reality where everything remains constant.
And so will be the investors who are still struggling to comprehend why BTC fees reach $70 and how when they transfer they will need to pay consolidation fees depending on the number of inputs that may reach thousands of dollars.
What is logical, natural, rational, and prudent is following what the latest tech can handle.
The blockchain trilemma that never existed worked well as an alibi for Lightning to justify the intentional inaction of BTC devs to scale the blockchain.
But, hey! Who cares, right? Let’s give a big cheer for ETFs!
Also Read:
👉 My Links:
Donations
BCH: tipb.ch/Pantera
CashTokens: bitcoincash:zr4nz4jv6jtf7q5tul8dy9j58u24pwawxsm0hh8hwz
Don’t forget to Subscribe and Like if you enjoyed this story!
