> Are you thinking of the lightning video that cashie dude made?
Right, Falkvinge's summary of lightning and the many problems with which it is afflicted. He is correct. I personally know and have attended many presentations from the guy who has been struggling trying to put pig on this particular lipstick since inception, he's skeptical and pessimistic that it can be done exactly because of the reasons Falkvinge goes over in that video, the routing problems are indeed on the level of anti-gravity in terms of complexity, nobody has a fucking clue how to solve them, those are the facts, and yes, because lightning channels are stateful when it comes to encapsulated funds, it makes it an even more complex problem than it would otherwise be.
> And my position is that the BTCP debacle contradicts that.
An exit scam is pocketing the funds with which you were as an entity entrusted with in order to execute on a particular plan in future. So, there's a whole raft of ways in which the BTCP situation doesn't match up to that definition.
Firstly, It's an open source piece of software that if the participants within and holders so chose, they could easily fork themselves in order to execute upon it, even if you want to venture the hypothesis that they didn't actually deliver what they promised.
Secondly, they *did* deliver what they actually promised. They executed a merger of the ZCL and BTC ledgers and added zksnarks for anonymity, so your supposed "exit scam" is an exit scam in the sense that they actually did exactly what they said they would do, but the market didn't particularly like it, due to either exchange takeup or general market interest, so what? If I offer to manage an open source distributed effort to build you a car, and I've already shown you the plans for it, and I say I intend to also weld in this here open source automated driving system, and then I do, and then you try to sell that car but nobody wants to buy it, did I exit scam you? Fuck no.(c)