Quote from: kiklo on February 18, 2017, 11:47:25 PM

Those offchain transactions don't directly steal transaction fees from the miners, (Like LN will)
, and every movement outside the exchange will pay the onchain miners a transaction fee.
LN wants a system that Almost Never goes ONCHAIN, as you can transfer to anyone with an LN address and never needing to go onchain

This is something that I don't understand technically. LN is quite similar to exchange IOU transactions, isn't it ? In as much as there are systematic flows from one node to another, sooner or later, the node that "gets empty" will have to "fill up" its reserve on the chain, and the node that "boils over" will have to dump on chain, no ? Regularly, LN nodes will have to interact with the chain to "fill up" or to "empty" I would think, unless the LN network is entirely a closed graph and all nodes have sufficient reserves in their node to accommodate for all fluctuations.
My fear with LN is rather the opposite: that propagating "waves of panic" will overwhelm the block chain with transactions, because the amount of transactions pending on the LN network can in principle be orders of magnitude larger than what a block chain can handle (that's its main idea !). So if a block chain can handle, say, 100 000 transactions per hour, and the LN network has 10 million transactions pending in 10 minutes, and there's a panic wave going through the network, those 10 million transactions will need to go on-chain which will create a backlog of 100 hours, often passing the safety time limit of regularisation, and huge opportunities to scam.