FinnStin on Nostr: I generally agree with this sentiment, but there is a concern with Lightning. Your ...

I generally agree with this sentiment, but there is a concern with Lightning.

Your funds should always be safe on Lightning if you are diligent, but your channels can be closed at any time.

The counterparty risk isn't in losing the funds, but rather in losing payment paths.

Because I'm stupidly bullish on Bitcoin, I am somewhat concerned about on-chain fees getting so high that opening even a single Lightning channel becomes out of reach for most people.

Losing that channel once you do have it could be devastating, and so who is going to take the risk of opening a channel with you? Who would you trust to keep a channel open?

At some point, the expense might render running a self-sovereign and well-connected Lightning node a privilege of very large institutions. Less well-connected nodes may rely on having a channel with one of these large institutions to have access to reliable payments. That reliance could obviously be abused.

I'm sure more scaling layers will come, and there are a few here already. It'll probably work itself out. But we do need something more than the current state of Lightning.