Well lightning network is different than bitcoin its not to put a coin in the franky box, but its much more complicated than bitcoin, bitcoin is fundementally simple, 3 people in the world can install a node, and they will be able to run the network, have an address, mine it and make paiment in a secure manner.
The Bitcoin node software (and generally: all digital wallet software solutions) hides a lot of complexity. There is also Lightning software with a similar usability. I don't consider that a problem for adoption.
Plus LN wouldnt change much to the problem of volatlity and speculation games. [...] And i dont think the "scaling problem" is the issue at least for e commerce a delay of even 1h is still mangeable, even paypal can have similar delay.
I don't say it can directly "solve the problem", but it can lead to more acceptance by merchants and users, and thus lead to the virtuous cycle I described in the last post, where Bitcoin can stabilize and slowly become more usable as a currency, and thus "sustain its value" over time. Not only because it's instant, but also because it saves lots of transaction fees (there are still fee peaks where you pay >$5 if you want an 1-day confirmation, and this problem will probably increase in the future).
Even worse: without LN or other scaling solutions like sidechains and statechains (which are still in prototype/idea stage) Bitcoin won't support an increase of more than 50% in terms of transaction density compared with now. (And no, I don't want the 1 MB/4 MB block size rule to be removed. It is important to keep the network safe and open imo, but that's a completely different discussion).
I'm not an unconditional Lightning supporter, for example I support also
Paul Sztorc's sidechain ideas, but I think it is a big piece in the puzzle leading to Bitcoin adoption as a currency.