Lightning-Network VS research

The main problem in my mind with the Lightning network is that in order increase transaction speed, it is reducing the decentralization by requiring participants to trust the other network operators that they create channels with. For the lightning network to really scale to a global payment system, we would need large central hubs for the payments to route through and you would end up with a poor imitation of the centralized banking system that bitcoin is attempting to avoid.

This page is a good collection of issues and criticisms of LN: https://github.com/davidshares/Lightning-Network

Bitcoin specifically, transactions times and the layering, in essence the lightning network, has been a failure amid many embarrassing risks (some of which allowing for the possibility of a contract being intercepted). https://github.com/davidshares/Lightning-Network amounts to absolutely not being an effective currency system from the get go. An absolute waste of energy. Deflationary by design meaning a disincentive to sell baked into it. The volatile value means a completely undesirable means of exchange.

Lightning network is an off-chain L2 solution, not bitcoin. Also terribly unreliable and vulnerable: https://github.com/davidshares/Lightning-Network

The truth about the Lightning Network: https://github.com/davidshares/Lightning-Network

And I'm listing literally just a few issues. There's a more comprehensive list here.

It is non-custodian betting on price of supported assets paired against BCH, both parties put their money into the contract's pot and later the contract parses an oracle message and calculates how much they can take out. Made possible with Introspection opcodes and int64 upgrades to Bitcoin-tech Script VM, which activated in May '22 on Bitcoin Cash blockchain.

I dug around a bit and it seems to be this one: CHIP-2021-02-Bigger-Script-Integers.

native introspection

The latest "Group" proposal (v4.2) is more than just "tokenization". It got simpler and more powerful at the same time. It now enables generic BCH output groups that can be used to create persistent Script covenant contracts that can prove their genuineness. This is something that current contracts cannot do, even with the new Introspection opcodes. Group would make it possible because the groupID is a commitment to the whole genesis transaction, but this is not a post about that.

Will you soon shut up about BCH being shit against "superior chains" when I point you to the CHIPs such as Native Introspection Opcodes, Bigger Script Integers which allows better smart contract functionality coming in 2022, and PMv3 and Group Tokens which allow better token and transaction formats that are coming in 2023?

You can't, because it requires a sibling output (same prevout txid as the contract, but index 1 instead of 0) to be spent alongside it and it verifies it using introspection opcodes that will be available in May. Only the owner of the sibling can spend the contract.