No, the complaint is that a central third party is required in LN to process transactions.
That happens to be the same complaint about Lightning.
The Pirate Who Can't Be Named

No, the complaint is that a central third party is required in LN to process transactions.

Wait, so I talk about a complaint regarding Lighting, and you start responding to something else? Wierd.

that is a perfectly valid argument as to how that course of events will play out in a feedback loop.

No you are explaining why there should be resistance to certain growth. Which would prevent it from being a slippery slope.

If negative consequences are not taken into account, and do not loop into anything then all hope is lost anyway.

What prevents us from slippery sloping now? If the answer to that is the blocksize-limit. Then why not a higher limit? It really isn’t a reasonable argument if you suggest to turn the blocksize-limit into something completely different without any quantifiable evidence.

It never made sense.

Since the theme seems to be find the logical fallacy, this would be an appeal to fear and doubt. “It’s unknown, so why bother trying to make it known!? Try randomly!”

In many words I’m still asking for anyone to quantify/design or find actual consensus for the blocksize-limit to limit actual transaction volume. And just pointing out that you have also failed to do so.

Second layer services are not centralized, they can be, they are not by requirement or default.

Rising fees will guarantee they will be. Efficiencies of scale guarantee centralisation. That’s just how the world works.

I did not invest in a password.

No off-chain solution scales Bitcoin, it scales something else. With different characteristics. To advocate it as scaling Bitcoin is very deceptive.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.