While I am for a capitalistic free and fair market, look what power and greed lead to (Amazon, Walmart, investment firms, Airlines, legal, and anything else “Big 4” or “Big 6”). One may argue that “large companies have the manpower to innovate” true, but so does an open source platform… probably more efficient and less bureaucratic that way as well. Or “big companies do work in bulk thus making products cheaper or more efficiently” true, though that comes with a price. The price being push out the small guys because the big company can do it cheaper. But when does this “cost and resource saving” efficiency cut into quality? All for an extra raise for the few within the company?
Decentralization would allow for EVERYONE to compete fairly without one single entity holding controls
Open source allows for EVERYONE to help improve and reduces back end fuckery with transparency.
I believe this is why some governments HATE crypto. I also believe that this is the way of the future. Disagree?? State your objections.
If that's all you got from my comment then you obviously didn't actually read it or take any time to comprehend it.
I'm going to configure lightning network for Bitcoin Cash and deploy it at my company's existing gateways just to make your silly stance even sillier.
Lightning network is fully optional and has utility, just like centralized exchanges have utility even though they are no better than legacy systems for crypto.
Do you consider crypto only valid if you're running your own node on your own hardware running some open source OS that you've vetted yourself? Lol
It really all depends on how deep you want to go with it. For most people, no of course it's not necessary. It was always supposed to be the case that most users would use light wallets and rely on public volunteer nodes because the network is inherently trustless due to mining. This is described in the whitepaper.
So LN on Bitcoin Cash would still work, I've been told, but what would be the need for it? The only justification for its existence is to circumvent mining fees which is only a problem because of the limited block size. Maybe that is an oversimplification but not much. I don't know what actual use case there is for LN other than to get around high mining fees. Seems to me that it has all been designed to transform bitcoin into something that is compatible with legacy systems for functions like custodianship, transaction reversal, and introducing many potential vectors for fraud, mainly because it makes things so complicated that it scares most people away, so that justifies setting up corporations to manage those services. Could that be because they are trying to make it more like banking so normies will adopt it?
Just watched the video, silly conclusion. Hubs of course can be opened by any entity in the world, I'll use an established trusted hub of my choosing, if they even attempt to corrupt, I'll simply switch to a different hub. This is a valid form of decentralization.
Fake decentralization.
Why does there need to be hubs at all? Bitcoin never had liquidity hubs. All the liquidity is in one place - the blockchain. It's decentralized because lots of people have a copy and are competing to add the next block. There was no need for routing or watchtowers. Anyone could earn with hardware and no one could stop you from participating.