...even funnier is that LN devs still are not being honest that to move funds involves locking in value. and fiinding routes.
many keep promoting that its just a deposit into LN once and infinitely be able to pay anyone any amount risk free...
LN devs have been completely honest. Everybody knows that in order to use the LN you need to put funds in a channel. Whether you think making funds available on a ultra-low fee network is equivalent to "locking them up" is your opinion.
Also, you can just open a channel once and be able to pay people. You could pay people over the LN and get paid over the LN and never need to open another channel or close the one you have open,
in ideal conditions.
...but the truth is not what is being promoted
EG if all you want to risk in LN is 0.01.. but know just 1 channel aint enough, so think 5 may work.. thats 0.002 per channel. meaning you can now only send 0.002 for the only route that works, and then have to close the other 4 channels (more onchain tx) and then reopen more channels incase the one you currently have, the counter party decides to go offline....
That's completely false. You can absolutely just open 1 channel with 0.01 BTC. And there is not just "the only route that works", there are many routes. Routing through a network is not exactly a new problem in computer science. And again, you don't have to close a channel when you run out of local funds, you can just receive a payment on the LN instead. Just how like in real life when you run out of money, you must get more before you can spend money. Shocking.
...alot of people still beleive LN is the trustless, permissionless, unlimited, never needs onchain again solution. when the reality is that opening and closing channels because route crash/counterpart offline/change their acceptable payment levels.
if only people became critics to actually mention the pitfuls, thus actually try asking for something better and thus getting something that could actually solve things. then real solutions would actually mature and solve things sooner. and not just suck up to devs and promote halve truthes,
Ignoring your bullshit like "route crash"
(What is that even supposed to mean?), the rest of that sentence is completely false too. LN is trustless. Nobody ever said anything about "permissionless", and nobody said "unlimited" either. But it is entirely possible that with heavy adoption, people will not need to use on-chain transactions.
You're just spouting off nonsense. You can't expect to do that without retaliation.
