This is what most of you BU supporters are not getting. SegWit & LN includes a small block size increase, but it is not needed, because the scaling is done with a alternative solution. < LN hubs > Why would they want to do both, if the LN hubs eliminate the need for bigger blocks?
You are obviously ignoring this on purpose to win a argument or you are being paid to ignore it. Which is it?
LN does not at all eliminate the need for bigger blocks and in fact the LN whitepaper says it will require larger blocks. Also, LN may be extremely useful but is not a complete scaling solution because it does not always fit the needs of people who want to use Bitcoin as peer to peer cash (because you first have to open channels, probably with centralized hubs).
So, I will ask you now: Were you unaware of this, or shilling for Blockstream/Core ?
I am with Jonald on this one. LN selling point is, that it is OPTIONAL. In order to remain optional in the long term, blocks need to become bigger, too. Otherwise, when they become full, LN would become non-optional and become a Paypal-like vehicle.
Which is just as evil as Asicboost I guess
Best solution would be a hybrid, I guess, a Segwit/BU hybrid that has larger blocks hardwired, so that the LN supporters cannot cheat when time has come to increase block size.