It's conceivable that users may choose to delegate absolutely everything to third parties. they might buy with fiat directly into already existing channels run by an exchange or coinbase equivalent and expect all channel management to handled by them as well.
I think the only solution here is to have the LN be similarly easy to use as those centralized services. That way people don't need to necessarily understand all of the differences, they can just understand that people who know more than they do are telling them that this is the better way to do it and since both options are similarly simple to use they will take the word of the people who know more than they do.
It may not end up playing out that way. Bitcoin could become centralized like gold did in the past for exactly the reasons you and aununy are talking about. But if it does there will still always be cooler more underground projects to get interested in. Do you suppose the type of people who are using monero are the type of people who would hand over their private keys to a bank? I don't thinks so
Well the topic is complex, but one simplified soundbite is that transaction fees will become too high on-chain for users to open HTLC payment channels on-chain, and thus they will be forced into fractional reserves which is what European Central Bank thinks they might do anyway, even if they could afford to open a channel on chain:
Once LN is chugging along nicely we will just increase the block size. The only reason that people like me were resistant to block size increases is that people were pretending like it was a solution that it wasn't and planning on using it as a crutch to avoid actually addressing the real problem. Once the resistance to bigger blocks put the fire under everyone's ass that they needed to actually develop a REAL solution, and they actually rolled out that solution, there is no reason at all why we can not go back and re explore the idea of increasing the block size. That was always the position of people on my side of the argument. It was never some fanatical opposition to bigger blocks on principle. It was just a statement to all of the people who thought we were going to solve the scaling problem by just increasing block size as big as was necessary, that they could piss off, which they did, over to btrash, and good riddance.
I think the way that you have to think about this problem is from the other direction. You have to think in terms of need and what is required to serve that need. So kinda like this: Lets say everyone on the planet wants to use LN. That's 7 billion people. I'm going to make a wild stab and say that they may need 3 on chain transactions per year each. I think that is a pretty generous assumption. 1 every 10 years could be enough. The average transaction is about 250 bytes but lets double that to 500 because transactions to open a payment channel are probably bigger I'm sure. Lets also assume that on chain scaling measures only decrease the total size of transactions by half though between now and this nebulous point in the future. Ok so that comes out to 100mb per block being required. So with those assumptions if the block size was significantly less than 100mb your claim would probably be true and if it was 100mb or higher it would probably be false. The specific values aren't important, you can plug in your own, just wanted to point out the different way of thinking about the problem.
Well I will surely try the app with a few bits but I will wait for LN to get out of the development stage completely and become free from any bugs and errors because I am really not into losing my money. Moreover, I am really sorry but I am never going to trust a new app with merely 1000 downloads so far with my funds. So will wait for app to grow a bit to organic users.
Sure, sure, I only put 20 dollars on there myself. If I lose it I've had more than 20 dollars worth of fun with it already.