True, but network effects mean that the more coins which are LN-enabled, the more useful the network becomes.  Plus, with atomic swaps via LN, we don't need to rely as heavily on centralised exchanges.  This can only ever be a positive for crypto as a whole.
  


You say that like having the choice is somehow a bad thing.  How is this a problem?  



True again.  But some people are creatures of habit and make the same routine purchases.  I know that, unless I've booked time off work, I'll spend between £3 and £4 in the staff canteen each day that I'm in for a full shift.  It's easy to plan ahead for that sort of thing.  It's literally no different to making sure there are enough physical notes and coins in your wallet before you leave the house each day if you're a fan of paying in cash.  It doesn't require a goddamn PhD or bachelor's degree to figure out.  Just because it isn't a one-size-fits all deal, that doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue it.



Many would argue that no one is "stalling" anything and that you're expressing an opinion rather than a fact.  Also, on-chain features doesn't necessarily mean changing the size of blocks.  Things to improve on-chain scaling are already in development.  Schnorr Sigs and MAST could both result in smaller transactions, meaning we can squeeze more transactions into a block.  PSBT could give us the option to make payments completely offline without an internet connection and then settle them on-chain at a later time, so you may be able to time it strategically to record it on the blockchain when network traffic is calmer and fees are lower.  Making more efficient use of existing resources should be considered before simply burning through more resources.  Bitcoin is still on the bleeding edge of innovation.  Most of the altcoins that claim the latest and greatest features are just throwing buzzwords around and aren't actually delivering any real innovation.