Although I do agree with many people that this feature is "not Bitcoin" as some say, why the hate for it?
So there are 3 main complaints people make about lightning network and these are a combination of partly true, part misconception, and complete FUD
1. Purists believed the blockchain was good enough for all transactions and the proverbial "cup of coffee" purchases could be done on-chain simply through micro bitcoin transactions. It's clear now that if we had all of VISA's transactions worldwide, in its current form the blockchain would need to have 2GB sized blocks to sustain that volume of transactions.
Current technology and even anything we can perceive in the immediate future makes that impossible with transmission of new blocks generated, propagated and stored in a distributed manner. The counterargument is we'll only slowly get up to that size; it won't happen overnight and we'll find a way between now and then to do it.
I think this is wrong already. It is based upon the belief that bitcoin's decentralization (that is, the spread of the powers of decision in bitcoin over a lot of non-colluding entities) has something to do with the amount of copies that are kept around the world on different storage apparatus (Joe's node in his basement).
It is indeed not feasible to spread 2 GB blocks every 10 minutes to EVERY JOE node in his basement, because there are many Joe that won't invest a few $1 000 in the necessary equipment. As such, your statement is right. But the fundamental mis-understanding here, is that Joe's copy of the block chain matters AT ALL in the decentralization of bitcoin's decisions.
Only 20 entities make all those decisions: the mining pools. These entities are the sole entities being able to even MAKE a right block chain. It only takes the chain of HEADERS to VERIFY that the chain of headers you have, is the "best block chain" and even to make a failed imitation of it would cost a fortune and would easily be detected.
So in reality:
1)only about 20 entities BUILD the sole block chain out there
2) every smart phone in the world can easily check that he has the right header chain downloaded, made by these 20 entities (can check the proof of work in that header chain).
Once you realize that, you also realize that the only entities that REALLY NEED to have this full chain with 2 GB blocks, are those 20 entities ; but of course, anyone willing to invest enough in it, can have that chain too - only, apart from big users like exchanges, THERE IS NO POINT in having this amount of data:
a) possessing it, and transmitting it, doesn't change ZILCH to the decision process in bitcoin (whether you have these data or not, doesn't alter the decisions that the sole authors of the block chain, the 20 entities, make)
b) you can verify for yourself that the sole true chain out there corresponds to the headers which ARE very small and independent of the block size
c) those needing it, are so much invested in bitcoin in any way, that for THEM there is no problem in having these data transmitted and stored quickly and smoothly. (exchanges and mining pools DO NOT HAVE technical problems with such volumes, not more so than any serious data center has in serving such kinds of volumes which are small to other internet usage).
==> there is strictly no technical problem for the involved entities to process so much data, even as of today, and all the others DON'T NEED IT and it doesn't serve any purpose of "decentralization"to have your own copy of the block chain - but if you WANT to you still can. For reasons of privacy, or because you want to do chain analysis and try to break other people's privacy.
The "waste of storage resources" for those few entities serving the block chain (because they are also the sole entities MAKING the block chain, and taking all decisions on it) is ridiculously small as compared to the inherent waste of resources imposed by proof of work, wasted by those same entities. In other words, given all the wasting that goes on in bitcoin, the "block chain size" issue is microscopic and irrelevant.
This whole debate is meaningless ; the blocks can have just any size, only a few copies need to be available to users and we're talking about amounts of data far inferior than most middle sized data centers are already handling with a smile. There's nothing "decentralized" in working as a distributed proxy in your basement for the sole chain that is out there and on which you have, in any case, nothing to say.
3. LN is centralised instead of distributed and blockstream will will run it. Lightning nodes can be run by "someone" but that doesn't mean it will all be held by one entity. It is possible to run a node of your own though it is highly likely that several competing services will come out using the same protocol and people will use that in preference to running a complete full blockchain node and lightning node on top.
It is fairly obvious that if you run LN nodes for profit (and you have to, because otherwise it will be lossy with all the settlement fees), the economies of scale scale strongly with committed capital, making big hubs able to offer much more competitive LN channels to customers than small users.
Also I think I am a reasonable guy and I have no hidden agenda or axe to grind in this crypto currency space.
