I'm pretty sure it'll get better the more populated it gets. The liquidity problems are due to not enough...liquidity! This is a small network problem, not a large network problem. There's also split payments (don't know if they've actually been adopted yet but I heard about them a while ago) which would solve a lot of the liquidity issues. I mean unless you're just talking about the liquidity of needing to have bitcoin on either end of the channels to move money in either direction, but that's just an inherent property of the protocol and everyone understands that, and that just makes LN not be the ideal solution for all types of Bitcoin activity.
I do agree LN is not the solution for everyone's spending habit. As it does have tradeoffs, namely needing liquidity in your own channels, so for instance LN isn't something where you can just receive money without spending it, because it general you have to spend what you take in, and take in what you spend. It's a great solution for spending any money you receive, which is what the average person does anyway, but definitely doesn't work for all scenarios. But for the things it does work for LN is a pretty fantastic as a super cheap basically instant bitcoin payment network. I would say the main issue for users would be needing to keep the state or have a watchtower that keeps your state. I don't know if that is something that can be solved with some improvements or if that is just gonna be an inherent part of how it works. I would say that's the only major 'flaw' that will grow worse the more LN gets used because node's states will become large with all the tx records (at least from how I understand it works). I did hear in a podcast once that this could be fixed with an update to the Bitcoin protocol but that update would weaken Bitcoin itself so that doesn't sound like a good idea haha, but I have no idea what improvements and workarounds at being worked on for LN.
i know you have not used lightning. but before shouting utopian dreams and telling people all thats needed is patience and wait for growth.. please actually try running scenarios
heres one for you
you say one work around is to use more channels to "split payments"
well if people have say average of $1000.. and cant push through $1000 around a network due to many reasons
if everyone then splits that $1000 into 4 channels of $250
guess what.. everyone is then in the same boat of now not being able to move $250 around the network because everyone has divided the max liquidity
where some channels on routes are unbalanced
lightning will not be used by someone that wants to move whole bitcoins or multiple bitcoins
so its not a solution for everyone and unless you have multiple channels when one route fails you end up needing more balance per channel then you intend to spend
right now it has a
100% success at 0.000020 BTC (~$0.45)
95% success at 0.000273 BTC (~$6.11)
75% success at 0.005000 BTC (~$112)
50% success at 0.020000 BTC (~$448)
25% success at 0.050000 BTC (~$1120)
5% success at 0.168867 BTC (~$3780)
1% success at 1.000000 BTC (~$22300)
lol. I like how when other people simply describe what Lightning is you claim it is "shouting utopian dreams" haha.
What is with your extreme LN hatred? You just really want a centralized big block Bitcoin? Like, they've literally already made that, its called BCH and BSV and they are failed altcoins that nobody cares about and are controlled by a few people. So if that's your dream for bitcoin just head to those communities and you can stop worrying about the progress of building Bitcoin into global money.
Also I don't think you know how networks work. The larger the network, the more routes, and therefore the more liquidity, also as Bitcoin increases in price the more $$ will be available in channels for liquidity. Hence the larger the network and the larger Bitcoin gets, the more liquidity.
Also I don't think anyone claims LN will be used to move whole bitcoins or multiple bitcoins (ie tens or hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars around). Though with split payments it is possible, it's just that LN isn't needed for that use case. If you're gonna move money around like that there's no reason to not do it on the base chain. LN is for small payments and mass transactions. LN is for paying for stuff instantly (like when you are buying something in person) and for everyday spending, like spending $0.10 micropayment, or $5, or $10, or $100, or $300.
Also it is normal to have multiple channels open. That's expected. If you don't have multiple channels set up you're simply using Lightning incorrectly. So of course if you use Lightning incorrectly you're going to have liquidity problems because you aren't allowing your node to connect widely to the network but instead are just relying on a single connection which may or may not have good liquidity before it connects with the wider network.
Finally, your explanation of split payments makes no sense. The liquidity problem would be if your payment is too large to go through channels. With split payments it can put several smaller amounts through multiple routes, thereby solving the liquidity problem for large payments. In a large connected network this solved liquidity issues for large payments. Your description of split payments would have to assume payments are only being done from one section of the network to another, instead of payments being done all over the network. Like, you are literally making nonsensical assumptions simply to make LN sound bad.
Multiple channels per node (a common sense expected Lightning practice) and split payments and a large network solve just about any liquidity issue. Pretending like those things aren't done, or don't do anything, just to argue against LN makes you look pretty uninformed tbh. I mean, in another thread you just wrote that Bitcoin is centralized and Ethereum is not so maybe you are just really uninformed. Weird.