My argument here is with the particular type of Bitcoiner who behaves as if people and markets will do whatever Bitcoin wants.  That’s not how it works—all bluster to the contrary notwithstanding.  Obviously, most Bitcoiners outside a few social media venues do not think this way.

Bitcoin got big because it does what people want.  It fulfills a real need.  It is what the market wants.

Bitcoiners need to acknowledge use cases which are not addressed by what Bitcoin is today.  Many top-flight Bitcoin/LN developers do just that; and they rarely waste time posting on forums, because they are too busy creating solutions for tomorrow.

I observe that no altcoin today adequately fulfills the “cup of coffee purchase” use case.  Some of them have inexpensive, fast transactions—but security that would be a catastrophe, if they saw mass adoption.  Some of them have inexpensive, fast, secure transactions—with awful privacy.  Many of them have inexpensive transactions that would become expensive, if their blocks were not almost empty as they are now.  Etc...

The L1/L2 distinction is not only a Bitcoin thing; it addresses problems which are fundamental to blockchain architectures.  As the market matures, developers and users will come better to recognize which transactions belong on a blockchain, and which don’t.  A beneficial side effect of Bitcoin’s scaling debates is that Bitcoin is years ahead of any altcoin in L2 developments.  (Notwithstanding how Ethereum has been spinning its wheels with L2 talk; it has much worse scaling problems than Bitcoin, and thus far much less to show in terms of solutions.)