I'm also replying to @philipma1957:
There is a lot of complexity as to why we should or should not have LN I think in the long run it will hurt BTC but then again maybe not.
The intelligent technology of Lightning doesn't care what the majority wants. It's something that runs on top of Bitcoin, without anyone's permission and approval. Even if lots of users didn't want it, they could do nothing to prevent it. There'll always be some who find it satisfactory.
As for if it's damaging in the long term: I strongly disagree. It's what I call the solution to scaling. I'm not going back to paying 10-100 cents and wait for so long just to get my transaction confirmed. I want things to work instantly. I state the exact opposite: If we don't have Lightning, some shitcoins with larger blocks will find their opportunities to distinguish.
The Lightning Network protects the significance of the monetary policy of Bitcoin.
as you can see. blackhatcoiner is showing the advert campaign.
1. saying LN is intelligent technology.. when its simply 'joint-bank account' economics of private agreements between partners.
2. it doesnt run ontop of bitcoin. as bitcoin code has no LN peer connection stuff. and LN can still peer connect without bitcoin.
3. without permission? its 2-of-2 co-signing agreements needing the other person to give permission and be online to allow payments
4.seems you now want to show how you hate bitcoin. and dont want to return to using bitcoins 10min confirms and fee's, because you only want to use pico-measured unit fees and 'instant'(when online and amicable and liquid)