Currently, channels are limited to 0.16777216 BTC, and individual transactions can be no more than 0.04194304 BTC. These are safety limits, and may be changed (or possibly removed) in future



Atomic Multi Path (AMP) would be another option (a set of options really).

Instead of only sending via 1 channel, a Lightning node can send via multiple channels to a single recipient. This additional protocol is only at the discussions stage right now, though.

That depends on the network topology.

It is possible, given an appropriate topology, for each of the smaller payments to travel in opposite directions through the same channel.  In that way, the funds could be re-balanced.

People are waiting for this, wondering how long it takes for lighting network to be done and can be implemented?
I always thought whether it will going through the drama such as when segwit has not been activated or it will just apply to the main network.
The problem still the same :
- high fees and
- a long time to be confirmed
But, it just happens whenever bitcoin price spike, increases significantly and then people will judge: oh, this is because "spam transactions", we need bigger blocksize. But, it proved the other way after bitcoin corrected, we can send $800 in bitcoin but only pay $0.5 fees.

I have a much different vision for Bitcoin. Could this probably grow into multiple solutions for different use cases? Like off-chain SWIFT like solutions being used for large amounts and multiple PayPal type solutions for smaller amounts. <Not PayPal, but 1000s of little PayPal payment processors handling that kind of load> This will not be large corporations, but rather current payment processors taking on that role.

Individuals can still participate, if they can fund multiple smaller channels. 

I think LN will be good only for big whales who spend transactions every time like exchanges\partners etc. Because for them opening channel
will be profitable but for users who want to pay for internet it's no reason to keep in cloud their BTC. Maybe I'm mistaken?

LN is good for everyone who wants to transact BTC on a regular basis, not just whales. As a consumer you can just preload a payment channel with whatever amount you plan on spending the next, say, 6 months and you're set. Just one on-chain transaction to open the payment channel and off you go, spending coins on video games, online services or the infamous coffee to your heart's content without worrying about on-chain transaction fees.



The BTC of you and your counterparty are sent to a multi-sig address for the lifetime of the channel, so arguably they are indeed "stored" somewhere else, for lack of a better word.



There will always be a topological limitation in what LN is able to handle based on the size of the individual payment channels, ie. you will likely fail to transact, say, 10 BTC, if the majority of channels hold less than 1 BTC, making it impossible to route your transaction.

I guess the channel transaction limits as mentioned by Carlton Banks are subject to change once LN gets more stable, however I wouldn't be surprised if some sort of limit will be kept in place to ensure network stability.

This what I mean:
"Currently, there is a Proof-of-Concept implementation running on the Bitcoin Testnet. So everybody can try out the Lightning Network and even set up their own Lightning Node. A date when the Lightning Network will be launched on the Bitcoin mainnet is not yet set, but chances are high it will be sometime this year."
Read here
It's not on main net, still on testnet.
And this is the first one: Read here

I mean; Lightning network still not being used massively as you said: still only used by enthusiasts and early adopters
Even for segwit which has been implemented over 6 months is not really used by exchanges or most people in bitcoin-world.
in short, I'm waiting for an official announcement about everyone can transact using Lightning network easily, in most case, people transact in exchanges.

Yes you are absolutely spot on that there will be large hubs. Most estimates say there will be about 2-3 such hubs that will form.
This is a general critic of the lightning network being centralized.

However, this is NOT why lightning supports microtransactions and not bigger payments.
You can continue to make bigger payments on the lightning network as long as the channels have that much funds.
The reason why lightning is suitable for micro transactions is that there is little (or no) transaction fees for smaller amounts.

Lightning is best suited for making multiple "repeat payments". It is unlikely that you have multiple HUGE payments.
Setting up a channel and closing it requires 2 on chain transactions. If you make only one payment in the channel, you'd be paying the transaction fees twice (once for the setting up and one for closing). You could rather make an onchain transfer, paying the transaction fees only once.

I meant you keep making Bitcoin transactions. If your purpose is to just send one large transaction, i point out that you wouldn't set up a lightning channel just for that payment.
It works if you already have a channel which has enough funds.
Apologies for the ambiguity.