The fearful idea that Lightning nodes will be subject to clearing-house regulations is a paranoid delusion not born out by a shred of evidence. There can't be evidence because this has never been done before. The same is true of the speculation that there will develop only a few centralized "hubs". The opposite is more likely to happen because anyone can run a Lightning node and will be incentivized to do so. It is more likely that a very large number of small nodes will exist through which the network will route transactions, exponentially increasing the decentralization of the network.
The depiction of a 3rd party hacker stealing bitcoins by "broadcasting your channel in an old state" is deceptive and misleading. The risk with old channel states is between you and someone that you have previously agreed to open a channel with, not some random 3rd party hacker. If you are opening a channel with someone, you would most likely use a "rapid cooperative close" channel so that it closes immediately after the transaction is finished, instead of leaving an open channel with a balance. You would only use indefinitely open channel in cases with frequent ongoing transactions -- for example between your exchange account and your hardware wallet. In such cases there is some level of trust between you and the exchange in this example. However, there is a significant penalty to be paid by the exchange (in this example) should they try to broadcast a previous-state channel to claim funds and your open wallet fails to verify it: they would lose their whole side of the ledger in the open channel. So the "attacked" party would be the one that gains. If you didn't want to keep your wallet running to verify your open channels, you have the option of outsourcing those verifications to a third party node. I will probably set up a node for my family to use for this purpose, for example.
This video expresses fears of what someone thinks could happen, not what will or is likely to happen. The opposite is more likely - that Lightning Network will create a massively distributed, efficient, and secure payment processing network, as it is designed to do.
Are you concerned that it would be pretty easy for the banks or governments to be running the largest payment channels?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
No, I am quite certain that banks have better things to do. Like building their own version of Ripple to attempt to stay relevant. BUT even if they did run nodes, it wouldn't make a difference. The Onion Routing protocol used on the Lightning Network doesn't care who is running a node; it will use channels with good local connectivity to you, not those holding more funds. It would also be a liability to host a node with very many channels, because the more assets being hosted, the larger target it is for malicious attack. I suspect that exchanges will need to mitigate their risk by opening only a few channels to proxy nodes, who do the same, and so on, in order to dilute the honeypot.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Here is a good summary of the Lightning Network, by Andreas Antonopoulos.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit