Quote from: Elliander on December 16, 2017, 10:15:01 PM

That means, yes, one transaction is needed to open a channel and another is needed to close the channel, but on-chain. That doesn't mean there's a limit to how long the channel can remain open though, so in cases of people who leave it open indefinitely that ends up being even worse for everyone else who uses on chain transactions compared to those who occasionally close the channel.

Why talk about opening and closing "for the day" then? That implies you thought there was a time limit for channels to remain open

Quote from: Elliander on December 16, 2017, 10:15:01 PM

Additionally, I never said that people couldn't pay directly. I said that people who weren't sending a large number of transactions wouldn't benefit from use of the lightning network themselves. (although I did make it clear that in the short term it has a benefit by easing congestion)

You had a whole screed of text complaining about how Lightning impedes users from paying each other directly. It does the opposite.

Are you complaining about the Bitcoin network's ability to handle transaction capacity or not? If you are, a solution allowing "sending a large number of transactions" is going to work. Why you think that only works in the short term is baffling.

In summary, you have no clue what you're talking about, despite giving the impression that you do. I'm not going to apologise for stating facts.

Quote from: Elliander on December 13, 2017, 06:24:28 AM

I'd like to add that I don't believe that Lightning Network is the best solution to scalability. While it can certainly address the currently high fees, I have some long-term concerns about relying on it. The thing is, the Bitcoin network was designed such that less coins are minted over time so that the miners can gradually transition to being paid in fees. Eventually the only financial incentive miners will have is transaction fees, which means more transactions would lead to better mining incentives.

Using the lightning network to open channels through which several transactions can flow without fees circumvents that and can actually lead to higher average fees for everyone else. At present, it would work great because that would remove from the Bitcoin network large amount of transactions that would otherwise congest the network and improves usability for smaller transactions, but that doesn't side step the need to address network scalability issues. If anything, it seems like the lightning network would be better used as a tool for decentralized exchange between cryptocurrencies, but shouldn't replace the ability of any particular coin to act as an exchange of value.

If node operators were rewarded by the network the way miners currently are according to their bandwidth they would have a financial incentive to scale up their capabilities leading to the network as a whole scaling up if dynamic scaling was implemented. That would ensure that transactions everywhere confirm cheaply, and the lightning network can still be of use for quicker in person transactions at stores where you don't want to wait more than a few moments for the transaction to confirm.

If we go the route of relying on secondary networks to exchange value, how exactly are the miners going to be paid when there are no coins to mint and no on block transactions to confirm?

Future reduction in block rewards shouldn't be a problem.

The mining market adjusts to the value of the block reward (and always has). Miners must sell some coins to pay their costs.

So

new BTC supply always enters the market
new supply needs an onchain transaction to use LN
demand for on chain transactions will exist regardless of how prevalent Lightning transactions are

If you want to talk about the year 2140 (i.e. when the mining subsidy ceases altogether), perhaps the issue isn't quite the most urgent engineering challenge right now.

In short, your objections to Lighting are both moot and over 100 years too early.