Having been a prolific open-source developer in Bitcoin for nearly 10 years, time to time, I get asked my opinion on news about Bitcoin and Lightning Network.
It may surprise you, but most of the time you know more than I do, and you know more than what you think.
My priority is BTCPay Server, and I have a very narrow (myopic shall I say) focus on what I do every day. My focus is even too intense to keep track of all the developement happening on BTCPay Server alone. (When in doubt, ask @pavlenex)
My focus is more akin to a code gardener, where I focus on removing weeds, and making sure the ground is fertile so people can grow their fruits on the BTCPay Server garden.
As you do, I rely on shallow rules of thumb for surveying what is going on, with occasional technical dive into topics which I consider interesting.
If it was me, the answer is without doubt yes. Because that's what I know, that's what I trust, and I love using it. Does it mean BTCPay Server is better than X?
Not necessarily, I just didn't have time to try X and no case comes into my mind where X would make more sense than BTCPay Server. If you setup a one-day store where you don't care about precise accounting, maybe you don't need BTCPay Server. (Though, I would use it personally, even in the simplest case)
I don't know. As far as I am concerned, so long as the lightning implementation gives me an API to create and track an invoice, I'm happy... And I don't like it when bumping to a new version of the implementation breaks my code. (not pointing any finger there because I don't have enough on my hand)
I don't know, most topics that give debate would require me to put a significant amount of time to take a confident view. I, like you, rely on the track record of Bitcoin Core, and if I was really feeling strongly about something, I would definitely fork Bitcoin Core with my own patches.
Occasionally, there is noise on social media, but to be honest, I have classified all of it as mere storms in teacups, especially when compared to the block size war of 2017.
As there has been conflicting definitions of what layer 2 is, I'll say it here: If you can get off-chain Bitcoins back without cooperation this is layer two protocol, else this is not. The protocol part is important.
I know Lightning Network is a layer two protocol. Statechains seem to fall in this definition too.
It doesn't matter if you need a third party or a coordinator to transact. What matter is if you can get your BTC back at the protocol level without interaction.
What about other tech? I don't know. But if I had 30 seconds to evaluate, it would be:
- Can you get out without cooperation?
- Did Poelstra, Jonas Nick or Wuille sniffed the crypto part (implementation and theory)? or did they stay away?
Note that while Lightning Network, as a protocol, is layer 2, it doesn't mean that the way you are using it is "layer 2 compatible" in my definition. You might use it through a custodial wallet, in which case you need some form of interation to get your BTC back.
If you use a non-custodial wallet, you need to make sure you can get channel backups in case the non-custodial service goes down. You always need a way to get back your BTC.
Bitcoin is too wide, or should I rather say that our human intellectual breadth is too limited.
Experts often ignore what is outside of their current focus, and when they don't, they also rely on the same shallow signals that the normal plebs.
Even if you aren't a developer, your specific circumstances coupled with the knowledge you learned by trying and interacting with what is going on in the community may be enough to make you special, giving you opportunities tailored just for you.
Dive in, you may discover something or fail lamentably, which in both cases teach everybody here a good lesson.
If you want to see what the experts are currently focusing on, my top 3 would be: