Lightning protocol looks like the right solution
https://medium.com/@lightning_network/lightning-protocol-1-0...
https://medium.com/@lightning_network/lightning-protocol-1-0...
The core devs are like the DNC. They'd rather kill the blockchain than capitulate and update the block size.
edit: downvoting me out of visibility won't change the truth. The lightning network, which is driven by Blockstream, which makes up the most core devs, is planning to make money off of lightning network fees, and they aren't willing to give that up even if it means killing BTC. It's not even a secret - there is plenty of public info on Blockstream's business model.
And there is no such thing as a permanent solution. It's like a startup that runs out of money and dies because they spent years making the "permanent solution" rather than release early and often, iterating on the solution.
And enough with the obvious sound bites by the way.
How? Anyone can run a lighting node
> And now that we've reach a critical mass of transactions this lightning network is nowhere to be found
That conflicts with the other statement.
Please tell me where you are stuck: https://medium.com/@JimmyMow/announcing-zap-a-lightning-netw...
The lightning network is no where near the availability to be used by everyone. Blockstream is trying to get it out as fast as they can, and they are trying, but it's not adopted yet, despite years of development and promotion.
https://medium.com/@luxushub/the-truth-about-blockstream-and...
The lightning network is backed by Blockstream, which employs the most core devs. Blockstream plans to make their profits by making fees off of providing lightning network channels to exchanges.
How does github.com even make money? git is open source. Redhat? Linux is open source.