ill raise a point 5.

if having LN on bitcoin.. will people realise that their funds are locked into X week contracts with penalties for payment hopping and decide, next time they will avoid hops and instead choose hubs, which are cheaper.

making users end up all using the same hub to reduce the hop fee's. turning the hub into paypal 2.0 by being the middle counterparty signing everyone's payment.. for a fee(lower then paying multiple hop fee's).
adding to that. after broadcasting the settlement transaction. having CLTV on the confirmed settlement forcing the confirmed tx to not be spendable for a further 3-5 days to allow the hub manager 3-5 days to submit a CSV revoke code. thus making it feel even more like paypal. which in laymens: 3-5 day balance unavailable and chargebacks.

will people see the benefit of bitcoin?? when it in reality, it ends up feeling the exact same as paypal/failed fiat banking system?

ill raise a point 6.
with people locked into LN hubs.. how many people thinkcare about the full network, if they are no longer actually transacting daily on the mainnet.
how many full node users will decide they see no benefit of being a full node because all they ever use is the LN node.

will LN actually kill off the full node count when people dont need to use main net daily?

From technological point of view we have altcoins which are already superior to Bitcoin: they offer better scaleability, faster confirmations, are fully anonymous, are not pure POW but mix of POS/POW.
We have ASIC resistant coins which prevents coin from being centralized by huge mining farms and more. So why bitcoin is still used then?



BETTER TECH CAN'T KILL BITCOIN!

I think a major point is being missed.

Litecoin does Not Need segwit or LN, it already has 4X the OnChain transaction capacity of BTC.

Litecoin has no use for LN , because Litecoin is technically superior to BTC.  
Lower price, Lower fees, Faster Transfers, 4X the Transactions capacity


 


FYI:
Don't Bet on it! 

I'd like to see Bitcoin as a store of value and a hedge against inflation and banking failures. To be a store of value, it has to be easily tradeable, and I'd like to see it used as a means of payment for other virtual investments such as domain names. The improvements to core are moving Bitcoin in this direction imho.

I'd like to see a reduction in micro-payments that clutter the blockchain, faucets, ponzis and small change gambling sites don't help the growth of Bitcoin.

As of right now the best we can do is enable segwit which has been extremely tested (as opposite to the bitcoin unlimited failure) then add in LN to scale at global levels. Everything else just doesn't work. We are lucky that BU was never accepted anywhere notable, otherwise we would have 2 bitcoin chains by now.

things would change if..

the big 12 exchanges.
and also the merchant tools (bitpay/coinbase) both started pushing for another currency.

EG the 300,000 merchants accepting bitcoin, started accepting another coin and not advertising bitcoin acceptance.
'value' in bitcoin would decline

shhhh
rule one of barry silbert investment company DCG
dont talk about bilderberg aka satoshi roundtable 2017

dont talk about blockstream. dont talk about coinbase dont talk about bitpay, dont talk about bitpayBTCC[/url] or the BTCC ceo's brother(charlie lee DoE at coinbase and creator of litecoin)

..
i now predict the usual troll storm incoming to defend blockstream and barry silbert aka bilderberg organisers

the problem with full avoidance of 'divide and conquer' leaves people in a 'lay down and surrender'

what we should be doing however is getting back to bitcoins ethos of 2009-2013 diverse consensus.
and not treating the corporate centralists as the leaders of bitcoin.

we should be thinking about NODES (users) set the rules via consensus.. not devs
where by pools, if they want their rewards. they collate the data into blocks that fit the nodes consensus rules. not by rules devs want pools to adopt

recognise that any dev witholding onchain growth, as being not a good dev. and try to find a way to ensure NODES get to independantly change their settings without dev spoon feeding.

bitcoin needs to get to a point that devs are needed less and less because bitcoin can function alone..and users can change settings without devs.
(imagine a world where to change a font in microsoft word you had to ask a dev for a patch... bad)
(imagine a world where to change a font in microsoft word users just change a font. users can request devs add more fonts to the default list in the next update. but not require devs to control the fonts)
 not aiming for a point of needing devs more and more because bitcoin cant live without them

Is it ever possible to have only LN Bitcoins without a link to your Bitcoins stored on a mainet ? I doubt it, and ever if it is possible, it would be not much different from Bitcoin IOUs inside exchanges thus not very appealing to users. This is why I believe LN cannot solve the scaling problem at all, and no much more users could ever use Bitcoin with LN compared to today - because every user need mainnet transactions and there is no more space left for more users already (SegWit could increase number of mainnet transactions by about +50%, but thats it). Current average Bitcoin user already using Bitcoin very little, like sending about 1 transaction weekly on mainet only (250 K txs daily * 7 days  = 1,75 M users), you cant reduce this number much more for mainnet transactions space allowing more Bitcoin users (actually if you trust blockchain.info numbers about almost 10M wallets, you could estimate average user using just one tx per month on mainet only already!).

So with or without LN, I believe Bitcoin going to keep about current userbase numbers, so the Bitcoin value could keep similar value in the future as is today (between $100 and $2000 because of speculation).

+1 I'll say it once and I'll say it again... If Bitcoin is "Broken" then why haven't the "fixes" been implemented in a brand new Alt-Coin?

The fixes must not be necessary. Looks to be more of a centralization effort to control Bitcoin.