Do you even realize that the long term outcome of Lightning (the Holy Graal of Core folks) would be to massively reduce the amount of transaction fees versus an on-chain scaling?
At this point its totally unclear whether the Lightning Netvapor will be economically and practically viable at all. There are still huge gaps in the design (think of a sketch of the bitcoin protocol without block rewards) and no one can answer my questions about how simple hypothetical use cases woudl work out.
Therefore, it is impossible to say what its impact will be on the revenue that miners will get from transaction fees. Greg is pathologically obsessed with the 1 MB cap and apparently has convinced many (but maybe not all) Blockstreamers that it will provide miners with suitable incentives without making LN fees too expensive.
One thing that we can say is that anyone who wants to open, close, settle, or top up an LN payment channel will have to pay a bitcoin transaction fee. Thus, if the LN user base grows, the demand for those channel operations will become more desperate, the demand for bitcoin block space idem, the bitcoin transaction fees will become more expensive, and therefore the cost of the LN
per user will increase.
Would this business plan make sense in Austrian economics, perhaps?
Do you even realize that Lightning is build UPON a base named Bitcoin? Do you even realize that a house CAN'T exist without its base? How is Lightning bad thing for minors? Lightning can't exist without bitcoin and bitcoin can't exist without minors. Is Lightning a bad thing for Lightning?!
Actually Lightning could use any cryptocurrency in place of bitcoin. Or even multiple cryptocurrencies, with some (or all) nodes and hubs doubling as currency exhanges. That would let users choose the combination of speed, hashpower, and transaction fees that best suits their needs.
(Maybe that is why BTCDrak of Viacoin, an altcoin that intends to replace Bitcoin, paid Peter Todd to implement OP_CLTV, (aka OP_DAMN_DAMN_DAMN_I_TYPED_2160_INSTEAD_OF_2016) -- a bitcoin script opcode that is totally useless except for the LN payment channels. And why Charlie "Litecon" Lee likes Blockstream's (non)scaling plan, in public disagreement with his boss Brian Armstrong.)
Even more: Adam once claimed that the LN would achieve 10'000 transactions for every blockchain transaction. Leaving aside what that would mean for the coin lock-in periods of the channels, the rate of 1:10'000 is so close to 0:10'000 that no one would notice if the LN just dropped bitcoin altogether, and from then on just shuffled its "cryptochecks" around indefinitely, without ever settling them.
Of course, LN users would never accept that. It would be like that time when the US government decided that dollars would no longer be convertible to gold or silver. We all remember the revolts in the streets, and the huge bonfires where enraged dollar holders burned their then-worthless bills. Right?