[foepys]

The Lightning Network is a pipedream of ivory tower developers. People who think LN can scale Bitcoin into a global currency rivaling USD and EUR either don't understand LN or are lying on purpose.

Fact is that each LN "channel" needs a committed amount of Bitcoin that can only be withdrawn by closing the channel. If you want your Bitcoins "secured" in you wallet, you need to close the channel. Otherwise you will - by design - have to constantly monitor the LN for malicious actors trying to withdraw you funds from your channels - which by the way is also only possible with an extremely reliable internet connection. Ultimately it's only possible to "secure" your funds against malicious actors by closing the channel. This leads to nice DoS attack vectors, see below.

Opening and closing a channel requires an on-chain transaction. This means when you only calculate with the US population, you need at least ~700 million on-chain transactions per month, assuming people get paid once a month, which is absolutely underestimating reality. Also assuming business don't trade with each other.

Assuming 7 transactions per second for the Bitcoin network (which in reality is much closer to 3 by the way), you get 7×60×60×24×30 = 18,144,000 transactions per month. So LN cannot even serve 5% of the US.

Reading the LN white paper should give you an idea on how bad it is when you compare it to reality and how people are actually using money.

[pixelperfect]

Do you think people should stop working on LN? I think it's a good way to scale right now, regardless of whether or not it can theoretically handle the transactions of hundreds of millions of people.

There are probably going to be some big entities in the Lightning Network ("lightning service providers") that average users use to open channels in exchange for a fee. These LSPs need to closely monitor for malicious transactions, but the average user doesn't have to. The average user would only get ripped off if their LSP broadcast an invalid transaction. In that case, they could prove it to the network and everyone would leave the LSP. Eventually there will be long-standing LSPs with good reputation. People can open long-running payment channels with them. If on-chain transaction fees get really high, they could be set to timeout after a year. That gives both parties plenty of time to notice an invalid transaction. If they're paranoid about DoS or timing attack, they can close the channel a few days before it times out.

That's my understanding only from reading a few articles about how Lightning Network works, so what I'm saying might be ridiculous and I could be completely wrong.

[foepys]

You cannot distinguish between good or bad transactions. Malicious actors can create as many channels and addresses as they want because it's decentralized and "trustless". Anybody can join and leave the network as they want.

But even if there was a way to identify bad actors, what you describe as "big entities" already exists. They are called banks, just you described one with more steps and that's a lot more complicated.