The problem I see with the "just not use LN" argument, is that once Lightning network is widespread and we have channels all over the world filling flocks with all these microtransactions, the overall on-chain fee will be higher than ever, at some point it will be non-viable for most people to transact on-chain. For people using LN, it wouldn't matter, as their transactions will eventually go into a block mixed with the rest of LN transactions (btw, who sets the fee for an "LN-tx filled block"?) but for people that want to transact on-chain, it will be extremely expensive, unless im missing something here.
PS: Im not saying "make blocks bigger as soon as they get filled" and such nonsense are a solution, im just pointing out at how widespread LN usage could lead to unusable on-chain transactions.
What? No! That is not how LN works. There won't be "filling blocks with all these microtransactions" because the microtransactions are happening off chain. LN moves transactions
off chain so there will be more block space for other transactions. Fees should be lower with LN, not higher.
No, I may not have been clear with my post.
I am obviously aware that LN transactions are happening off-chain, but then these off-chain transactions converge within a block and get settled blockchain. So what im claiming is: when LN gets widespread, the rate at which these blocks get filled with off-chain transactions will be faster.
Also, people opening and closing LN channels will lead to on-chain usage too.
Eventually I don't see how this wouldn't lead to higher fees for those using on-chain.
Sure, we'll have a period of lower fees once segwit + people using LN for smaller transactions kick in, but eventually the current block space wouldn't cut it for those wanting to transact on-chain.
How far are we from that? who knows. With the fake spam it's hard to evaluate actual usage. We will just need to wait and see how the mempool looks like with a widespread LN and segwit I guess.