Not that I know of 🤔

Same. This guy thinks I don't use Lightning. I'm just being upfront about the weaknesses. Neither Monero or Lightning is perfect and has their own pain points. Off the top of my head routing is constrained by liquidity so it limits your potential paths to a destination instead of being chosen at random (ideal case for onion routing). The effect becomes more pronounced the larger the payment that you're sending. The more channels a node has on the network, and lower the fees, the more likely it is going to be chosen to be a hop on your route. I already mentioned this but Lightning amounts aren't encrypted. MPP helps a lot for all this, but still reveals a lower bound and also isn't default for the network. More adoption of blinded paths would also help (preferably default). Something that affects both Tor and LN is that there is no mixing or dummy traffic/transactions which would make it even better from a privacy perspective. But I'm not sure if that is even possible on LN the way it is designed at least.

Even when using it perfectly onion routing has plenty of flaws. And there are many differences between how routing works on Tor vs Lightning that are detrimental to privacy. You can get defensive and pretend they don't exist if you want. https://github.com/Attacks-on-Tor/Attacks-on-Tor

No one is talking shit calm down

If you don't care about privacy weaknesses of something youre using, like others knowing your balance, nodes being able to see amounts passing through them, or the fact that merely 1% of nodes own 99% LN liquidity and the impliciations of that, you shouldn't care I guess

Kind of dumb that ones use of a tool (or not) is based on the behaviour of a few users of that tool. If that was the case we wouldn't use anything. But I can understand the annoyance.

It is a trade-off for sure. Probably an unavoidable one. In Moneros case increased transactions mean node runners pay (in storage and bandwidth cost -> affects decentralization) less people willing to run nodes. In Bitcoins case limited blocksize mean users of the network pay in transaction fees. The way I look at it is if the network is too expensive to use those users aren't going to run a node anyway (who is going to run a node for a network they can't afford to use or don't use often?) which also affects decentralization. Both arguments are valid imo. Maybe there is a balance or a better solution will be discovered down the road. And about Pubkey yea it's fairly small and I'm not on there often but think it has a lot of potential still. Maybe more people will use it once it isn't invite only anymore 😅

Running your own mint defeats the whole point of having a large anonymity set of users to hide among. Using someone elses mint means you give up on self-custody. Different use case from Monero.

The blocksize grows or shrinks based on median number of transactions is pretty much the gist of it. There is a penalty against miners for increasing it too fast and a short, medium, and long term formula for how it works but that gets into the technical weeds.

Every node on a payment route can see amounts. Additionally, you must entrust the confidentiality of your funds to a third party (LSP) or counterparty (your channel peer). Not to mention the terrible interface and limitations when using it. Lightning and Monero will always have different compromises due to different architectures.

Fees will always remain relatively low on Monero because of dynamic blocksize. But I do think ecash has it's own unique benefits for a different use case like micro transactions, no public blockchain, instant and offline payments, etc

Bitcoin should adopt Zcash shielded pools. 21 million would be preserved on the transparent side with turnstiles and it's optional so if someone doesn't want to use shielded pools because they don't trust it they don't have to.