Oddbean

I strongly disagree. Lightning hasn’t seen a fundamental overhaul, sure, but tons is iterative improvements have been made to address the largest user-facing issues. Whether it’s better interop and bug fixing to (substantially) reduce spurious force closures, slicing to ensure liquidity fragmentation isn’t an issue, BOLT12 to provide stateless payment instructions and recipient privacy, anchors to address some pinning vulnerabilities and fee spikes preventing payments, etc, there’s been a ton of changes! In net, spurious force-closures have probably dropped by 5-10x, surprise payment failures by 50% and a ton of other features.

Huh? The things I mention (except splicing) are broadly available and have been for several years! In terms of “major improvements”, I’m not really sure what you’re looking for - lighting isn’t going to be rewritten to be a totally different system, liquidity constraints isn’t a solvable problem with lighting, and someone has to pay fees in channel transactions. If you want a fully trusted/custodial system you’re welcome to use one, but I’m not really sure how much different lightning can get. Do you have specific ideas or issues you have in mind here? In terms of the personal attacks, I’m happy to respond to any specific points or cases you want to discuss but blanket ad hominem isn’t really a thing to respond to (and if you think I’ve told people they’re “wrong” about Lightning’s limitations, I dunno if you’ve been paying attention).