2. Bitcoin without LN isn't nearly worth its valuation, but bitcoin with LN is worth many times its current valuation so we're settled somewhere in the middle.
3. I'm inclined to trust Brahm Cohen more than your flawed analysis of LN routing: https://medium.com/@bramcohen/in-this-analysis-nodes-arent-b...
2. You have absolutely no way to accurately verify or anticipate that claim.
Feel free to provide a retort to my claim that Bitcoin is flawed from Satoshi's implementation and upon examination of the computer science and codebase behind BTC, the false equivalence to gold and store of value will fail as it becomes obsolete to something else.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15991762
3. Brahm Cohen is suggesting a prerequisite of 3 escrow deposits, which would require 6 transaction fees.
This is a bizarre answer to the article he was responding to, as it fails to avoid the gravitation towards payment processor style hubs.
Also there’s nothing wrong with long routes. They settle
out in the middle just fine, despite the author’s
dismissiveness to the possibility that they can.
https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-...
2. My claim is simply that Bitcoin is worth significantly more with LN than without? You then take a more preliminary argument that Bitcoin is worthless to begin with, which is laughable.
3. 6 on-chain transaction fees that support millions of off-chain payments. And your hub argument is a feature of a distributed network itself, not of LN in particular. Say a "hub" emerges and starts charging fees. Market competition paired with efficient routing solves this easily.
If you don't understand Brahm's argument, I suggest reading through it again. He's a pretty smart guy when it comes to distributed networks.