The statement bitcoin is destroyed is not at all true and not gonna come true in the future. Most could have known in this seven years time how many interruptions were faced to reach this growth. So if its a failed one already it could have happened.
That is what they all thought at the peak in 1929.
It is not dumb that n00bs don't know the technology and game theory economics. What is dumb is when n00bs (such as the Bitcoin maximalist comments in this thread) think they know something about an issue that is far too complex for them to be comprehend without deep research that they are unwilling or incapable of doing. This is known as the Dunning-Kruger effect.
So many dumb comments in this thread by Bitcoin maximalists who will invent any excuse possible to remain in denial of the fact that highly centralized systems fall into the abyss of turf battles morass and BitCON is becoming the TrojanHorse coin with centralized mining control enabling
the coming capital controls and expropriation of wealth by the G20:
LN ... doesn't scale well decentralized (but we may eventually get there with Bitcoin highly centralized, although being that this is fighting for who will control it, it will not come without battles as we've seen with Bitcoin Classic and XT versus Blockstream and the Chinese mining cartel):
Now all we have to do is wait countless months for segwit which no doubt'll be batted around by the various parties too. Whoopee.
...
The mass use case of Bitcoin is very weak because the technology doesn't scale decentralized and decentralization and permissionless qualities were the original reason to want CC instead of digital fiat, and Bitcoin is a very tiny, miniscule market right now.
The less decentralized Bitcoin is, the slower its network effects will grow. Because turf battles turn it into a morass.
YouI don't understand how Lightning protocol works to claim it's decentralized.
ftfy
Thanks for your feedback. Hope you don't get offended if I correct your misunderstanding.
LN requires orders-of-magnitude more block chain transaction bandwidth for peak garbage collection phases, than it consumes normally. Thus you need Bitcoin to scale massively before LN can scale massively. Bitcoin can't scale without being centralized for validation and mining. That is fact well known to experts such as myself. Many people may deny it and I have no desire to argue with them.
LN also requires a few numbers of centralized servers cooperating for it to function reasonably well:
It uses a decentralised method of routing by everyone knowing the topology. In the future we will implement RP routing, which dramatically decreases the requirement to know the full topology of the network down to only the 24/7 online nodes.
...
Yes correct. In my simulations routing with ten thousands of nodes was carried out in <1s.
That works fine with RP-Routing, because then you exclude all active participants from the routing problem and only concentrate on the passive nodes. I agree that if you take into account millions of wallets, it does get much more difficult.
LN can't send a payment from Bitcoin address to any Bitcoin address. It requires users establish accounts in the LN before they can be eligible, i.e. it is an opt-in system and it is not persistent.
LN is an incredibly complex Rube Goldberg kludge patched on top of an inadequate block chain design and there IS a better solution coming. You have to discard the Bitcoin block chain and Satoshi's design and start over.
In general, Bitcoin is moving towards centralization over the control of which nodes validate and thus which can do capital controls and KYC enforcement on transactions:
https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2016/01/08/spv-mining-is-the-solution-not-the-problem/http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/1txn/
