Anyway, you are the one who has come with an onchain scaling proposal and at the same time you are promoting LN?! Why should anybody even care about onchain solutions if he is a believer in LN or any 2nd layer alternative?
You kinda answered this question yourself:
But generally, I think there is no decentralized, trustless, secure solution in the horizon other than blockchain
My personal estimate is that it will take several years for LN to mature, but we need bigger blocks
right now. This solution would provide time for LN developers (or sidechains, or whatever) to do their thing, and we would enjoy 5-10 MB blocks until that time.
and I don't believe in LN being an alternative technology.
So what's your alternative? 500 GB blocks every 10 minutes? If you read my paper, you'd see I'm for a
reasonable increase, not extreme.
Why should we use blockchain for LN by the way. One could adopt LN to be run on fiat and traditional banking system.
Traditional banking systems are custodian systems, where they are kings and can do whatever they want: run off with your money, or shut down your account at any time for any reason, or tell you to come get your money Monday through Friday from 2pm to 4pm. They don't have this power with LN, at no point your funds are at risk. You can close the channel back to the blockchain if you don't like how the counterparty behaves. I can't vouch for how effective it can ultimately be, we'll see, but it's a neat concept nevertheless.
But as far as I understand, the main controversial issue with block size increase proposals is not their need for a hard fork rather it is their centralization implications because of progress and proximity consequences
I think I've highlighted this enough times in the paper, but I'd like to point out an important point again: you
can limit superspace blocks, by saying in the protocol the block is invalid if its size exceeds, let's say 10 MB. Increase from 1 MB to 2 MB in SegWit did not really affect decentralization so far, neither would 10 MB. 128 MB blocks definitely would.
Also, it doesn't mean that every block will be 10 MB from now on, only in the "rush hour".
Where did I get 10 MB number? Nowhere, it's just an example. We can set it to whatever limit the community deems reasonable. The point is that we
can impose it. But now we ourselves will be able to decide what the block limit should be in today's circumstances, not 2010's Satoshi when he initially put 1 MB, looking at 2-3 KB blocks as they were back then.