The experimenting phase is over; it is time to hit the reset button and start fresh.

I was experimenting with Bitcoin Lightning Network to see what had changed since a year ago, and I have learned a lot; now, I have new knowledge that I can share, which may help me in my next journey in the crypto walk.

Lightning Network hasn't changed. It is still the same protocol. The only difference from a year ago is that new players are trying to make its issuer for others to use, and others are trying to make a buck by charging those users a service fee. Yes, if you don't have an incoming liquidity channel now, you can order one from a seller specializing in it, but it will charge you an upfront cost plus a higher than usual routing fee. It is something that store operators would need, and in a Bitcoin world, the final payer of those fees will be the final consumer.

I would also add those genuinely decentralized wallets where users control their private keys are limited at best, and you may see that many wallets say they are lightning network wallets. Still, they are just glorified multisign wallets where the other party has some control over your money; those wallets include Pheonix and Muun, among others. And a plethora of custodian services disguising themselves as wallets, but in reality, they are just bank accounts like the Wallet of Satoshi and Chivo in El Salvador.

Also, some are trying to add functionality to Bitcoin by creating sidechains. I',m participating only in one Rootstock, but the other is Liquid by Blockstream. Those sidechains have, at best, onion-like security levels to prevent hackers from hacking and stealing funds from and to the sidechain. Those bridges aren't fully decentralized yet; at best, they use security hardware wallets and multisign wallets, which are protected by being located at secret locations protected by Tor, like obfuscation of the real places. I believe sidechains on Bitcoin need SIP 300 or something like that to create a natural decentralized bridge.

Lightning Network has become like on-chain transactions, a racketeering game from miners and liquidity providers who may want to use either of both networks. DeFi on Bitcoin's sidechains doesn't have a fully decentralized bridge and relies primarily on layers of security to secure such sidechains that may have a decentralized bridge in the future. And Bitcoin maximalists are still skeptical of the whole DeFi, so growing a project may take more time than with the competition like Ethereum.

Now that I know what is wrong with Bitcoin, which is more of the same, my next goal will be to keep my Sovryn because that was a bad move. Now I admit it and start over and forget about that failure. I won't sell, but I will admit that I may never see that money again.

I will concentrate again on Bitcoin Cash and try to get the initial number of coins I had when I moved my money into SmartBCH, which was around 5.5 BCH. So my first goal will be to have back at least 0.11 BCH as the first money I got from the fork in 2018. After that, it will be back to my previous portfolio.

And I don't think I will participate in SmartBCH because, like today, the bridge between BCH and smartBCH has been stopped. I don't know what is going on with CoinFlex, but that has started some warning signs in my head, and I will not put any serious money until I see a better bridge for sBCH.

Conclusion.

I have relearned what I already knew about Bitcoin that high transaction fees are still a problem in that network and that they have some people trying to profit from a fee market where the user is the person paying absolutely racketeering fees. Meanwhile, Bitcoin Cash has been processing a fraction of a penny transaction fee since the fork date. Now I will focus on getting my initial investment again in light of what I have learned of 5.5 BCH, but I will be careful with SmartBCH because I'm not too fond of funds being frozen when the federated bridge at CoinFlex goes down.