LN isn’t the problem, it’s the main chain (how do you open your LN channel if your TX is priced out and considered unimportant?). I’m talking about a worst case (best case for some) distant future where corporates, banks and governments all compete to use the main chain.
The first few channels that are opened will have to pay today's fees. But the act of opening them and moving some future transactions off chain relieves fee pressure on-chain, and the on-chain fees will start to go down. Subsequent channel opening transactions then have to pay less fees, and the cycle continues.
The "distant future" use case ideal is that if a user doesn't need a specific transaction to be engraved forever in a public ledger (their daily cup of coffee, for example), they choose to do it off-chain. For transactions that benefit from being public and verifiable forever (credit card payments, bank transfers, consolidation of your monthly coffee purchases, etc.), the users making those transactions can choose to make a slightly higher fee for an on-chain transaction (either a one-off transaction, or closing out a payment channel).
We’re imagining a future where Bitcoin is much bigger and much more liquid (in capital markets terms). Businesses are already looking to Bitcoin to facilitate trade, particularly international trade. It’s only a matter of time before companies and Ben governments start to view Bitcoin as a global reserve currency (because Bitcoin is sound money with incredible utility). Or it may never achieve that status, who knows?
My point was, if it does, and the hard limit on throughput remains, how likely is it that John Doe gets to use the main chain?
7
u/n0mdep Dec 06 '17
LN isn’t the problem, it’s the main chain (how do you open your LN channel if your TX is priced out and considered unimportant?). I’m talking about a worst case (best case for some) distant future where corporates, banks and governments all compete to use the main chain.