Bullshit. You can't just point at the entire corpus of material written about LN, and tell me that these concise targeted assertions are disproven therein. Grab one and point me to what you believe is written that disproves it.
If you can, pretender.
If you can, pretender.
Sigh ... , lets start with the first link ....
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/85650/htlcs-dont-work-for-micropayments/85694#85694
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1G4xchDGcO37DJ2lPC_XYyZIUkJc2khnLrCaZXgvDN0U/edit?pref=2&pli=1#slide=id.g85f425098_0_195
which directly addresses one of Rizun's concerns with the dust limit expressed in the article "Visualizing HTLCs and the Lightning Network’s Dirty Little Secret"
Well, it provides a workaround, but does not solve it.
Sometimes names are misleading. In this case however, 'Probabilistic Payments' is a very apt description of this mechanism. The payment may or may not happen. Is there something about this that you do not understand?
I also note that the "concern of Rizun's" that you have chosen to 'rebut' is merely one micro-sub-case of one of the listed FFFoLN. Not only is it not a solution (being a mere compromise) to the issue you chose to 'rebut', but the actual one of the FFFoLN of which it is a special case -- namely, that fraction at layer 1 leaks to layer 2 -- has much more damaging consequences. Such as 'persistently full blocks prevent opening of channels, closing of channels, and repudiation of counterparty posting of stale channel state data'.
Bzzt. Try again.