Re: i have proven the Lightning Network can't provide decentralized scaling.
You may think I begin trolling now 
... but I mostly agree with your analysis. I have discussed, above all, the "channel exhaustion" (=channels that lose the "routing power") problem with other users and no solution (that doesn't involve a centralized entity) has been found.
For me, LN was never more than a semi-centralized micropayment solution that is better than a totally-centralized online wallet because the "bank" cannot run away with my money. I would be happy if I can manage all my 0-20USD payments via LN and having at least 10 different hubs to chose from.
... but I mostly agree with your analysis. I have discussed, above all, the "channel exhaustion" (=channels that lose the "routing power") problem with other users and no solution (that doesn't involve a centralized entity) has been found. For me, LN was never more than a semi-centralized micropayment solution that is better than a totally-centralized online wallet because the "bank" cannot run away with my money. I would be happy if I can manage all my 0-20USD payments via LN and having at least 10 different hubs to chose from.
As much as we all are for "as much decentralisation as possible", there is not going to be "true decentralisation". The evidence for and against all solutions seem to hinge around this idea: "it won't work because that's centralisation".
Fair points for sure, but yeah, even users like me will be happy to use LN for smaller payments. I'd be able to transact more often and with risks on those small amounts. I don't because there isn't a cheap and fast way.