[Yizahi]

People must lock BTC in the "channels" from them to each of the peers they ever want to transact with, in the amount of what they will spend with them in the future. This should produce approximately 10billion*10billion channels in total (so 1^20 whateverellion channels for all humans). Then magic internet machine will solve this Traveler Salesman problem for each transaction.

After people realised that this is a crap idea, they have reinvented banks, who take people's BTC and give them IOUs instead. Then only banks have to deal with the "channels" and "locked" tokens in a centralised way, lessening the overall complexity.

Few understand :)

[thinkloop]

People have realized this a long time ago. The expected configuration is a node-based network like the internet. Messages (money) hop from "router" to "router" until they reach their final destinations through the shortest paths. The "bank" would still be your bitcoin wallet, while your lightning allocation would be like a credit account with every vendor simultaneously. The nodes are routers. The amount you put "at-risk" in lighting only needs to be a minimum amount you need to transact for the day/week/month - and it is not really "at-risk" since there are strong protections built-in.

The general story is that not all transactions are equal. A payment from your cousin for a poker debt doesn't need the fury of a million computers protecting it. Similarly if you have an ongoing relationship with a vendor, and many other examples. In real-life there are vastly differing trust-profiles between transactions. It's ok to trade some security for some efficiency sometimes. It doesn't make sense to treat them all the same.

[Yizahi]

So user gets a credit at the Not-A-Bank router-node for the full amount of what he intends to spend. Tell me, how exactly does this differ from a bank? Except with less oversight?