You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Roger Ver Interview - Bitcoin, Hate, Jesus to Judas? Future
Hate on Roger all you want but he is right. Lightning Network may be a catchy name but it's a huge step backward. Bitcoin was intended to be a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Solving high transaction fees with off chain transactions on the Lightning Network sidelines the most fundamental principal of Bitcoin.
I don't know if I agree with everything Roger says, but I do think the hating on him is is a bit ridiculous and unproductive. Baiting is so low. That guy who got flipped the bird by Roger wasn't trying to establish a meaningful dialogue or understanding, and he ultimately did a discredit to himself and other people on his side of the debate. That kind of behaviour really is no way to solve these issues or figure out where Roger is coming from. Ivan is a fantastic interviewer. It did seem that Roger had something to learn from Ivan about the nature of a hard fork and its effects on a community. I think he was too nice to school Roger on air. I don't understand the technicalities a great deal, and that includes Lightning Network. I also do think that the lightning network appears to undermine some of the fundamental properties of Bitcoin, but I was wondering if you could explain in some more detail why this is the case though.
Lightning Network uses payment channels and centralized hubs to route off chain transactions that are never truly settled until the channel is closed. This not only violates the title of the White Paper but Satoshi's vision of an economic system without the need for third parties. "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System." Lightning Network disregards the peer-to-peer aspect of Bitcoin and for that reason is a fundamentally flawed solution.