suppose that we are in a future where miners only get paid in transaction fees and the lightning network is heavily relied upon to compensate for having never implemented dynamic scaling. Online merchants who want to process millions of transactions a day around the world utilize a system where one on block transaction opens the channel for the day, and another on block transaction closes the channel for the day. All transactions that go through their payment system is taken care of in one go keeping the fees low for everyone sending transactions between the two companies. However, the people who initially send the coin to those centralized wallets are going to pay extremely high amounts which would discourage independent wallet usage (and increase the risk of what happens when centralized companies go out of business). Meanwhile, the people who just want to send money to someone across the world wouldn't benefit from the lightning network at all since they are dealing with just a single transaction, so they have to pay more as well.
The reason why everyone is stuck paying more is because anyone with multiple transactions just processes one, which means that the cost has to be spread across fewer payers, and those with less transactions ultimately pay the most.
It doesn't work like that. People can pay each other directly, and there is no need to close the channels ("at the end of the day" or otherwise, lol)
According to the Lightning network FAQ:
The system utilizes bidirectional payment channels that consist of multi-signature addresses.
One on-chain transaction is needed to open a channel, and another on-chain transaction can close the channel.
Once a channel is open, value can be transferred instantly between counterparties, who are exchanging real bitcoin transactions, but without broadcasting them to the bitcoin network.
-
https://medium.com/@AudunGulbrands1/lightning-faq-67bd2b957d70 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.
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)
Please stop wasting your time (and everyone elses): learn how the Lightning concept works first, then start talking again.
Please don't respond to threads with a condescending attitude, especially with inaccurate information, lest you be seen as trolling. That last like was unnecessary and detracts from the conversation flow. Even if I was wrong (and I wasn't) there's nothing wrong with being wrong and being corrected.