segwit is the bait to introduce dual-managed transactions (LN) removing peer-to-peer(no middlemen) and replacing it with peer-custodian (hub middlemen)
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2016-November/000648.htmlas for cheap transactions. read the open office spreadsheet linked in the "results" part of the link above
and then click on the "marketing conditions", "prepaid" both suggesting 0.006 btc pre-pay LN fee
if you check the other tabs. it only becomes a cheap fee if you are using it every second. however using it just once a day.. not cheap
to use LN users need to PREPAY 0.006btc which based on a 10day locktime
and it actually costs you more to not be spending. EG dont expect to get 0.0059xxxx back if you only do a couple transactions in those 10 days.
$4+(0.006) 'pre-pay' is a barrier of entry.
would you pay $4 every 10 days just to use a service?? which then charges you for not using it, and only works out beneficial if you are doing lots of transactions a day.
if yes then if you want to do grocery shopping. prepare yourself for scanning one item at the cashiers desk and paying for that item, scanning another and pay, scan another and pay just to get the best deal for the end transaction cost when the 10 days are up.
oh and if you want to close the channel early hoping to avoid paying a time compensation. forget it. there is a penalty for closing the channel early too. also by not signing in a convenient time (measured in seconds) you are penalised aswell.
seems LN have not thought about using code to mitigate risks of DDoS, errors, blackmail. but instead used greed of economics to find the penalty/prize values of avoiding DDoS, errors, blackmail.
LN is more about making the hubs money by users entering into a dual-signed address where the user then has less independent power of their own funds, while costing the user for not using LN efficiently.
dont think LN is going to be the saviour of cheap transactions.. its a bait and switch.. its just about faster method of 'trust' that the funds will be paid, while continuing to push the fee war on to make bitcoin have less utility due to cost of use.
if only these devs can stop playing the economics game of bankers and instead use actual code to mitigate risks, instead of fee's
seems devs think fee's are the answer to security. and forget that code can do the job much better
