It’s not that every merchant need to run their own Lightning node to make LN payment success.



Look at this, Square is integrating Bitcoin payment at much larger scale for eligible merchant, where merchant don't need to manage Lightning infrastructure themselves. That mean a portion of adoption is happening on backend, which is invisible to the user.

But I get your main point. Hmm, Lightning's UX is still not as simple as Bitcoin on-chain.

In my opinion, Lightning definitely has some future, but its future may not be a model where everyone has to run their own node and every store need to accept LN directly. Such complexity can be hidden from user through infrastructure of wallet, exchange, payment processor and application.

I guess you brought up this discussion because the Bitcoin network fee is very cheap at the moment. You want to know how important LN is? Wait until the mempool is clogged, and then we can have this discussion. LN usage may not be as popular as you expected, but that does not mean it's not serving its purpose or it has no future.

Merchants are being offered alternative networks (coins) that also provide low fees and simple setup, along with off-ramp capabilities; so it makes sense that the LN is not a priority, given that most business needs do not strictly require a long-term store of value.
However, the Lightning Network will have a future of its own, for instance, in serving businesses that do not require rapid capital turnover.

There are no perfect things in life and it's true in blockchain industry, with Bitcoin blockchain either layer 1 or layer 2. There are developments of many Bitcoin layer 2 projects so far and even Bitcoin blockchain is biggest, strongest and most secure compares to altcoin blockchains, Bitcoin ecosystem is a biggest one in cryptocurrency market, failures of many altcoin layer 2 projects can signal many risks.

Sidechain Observer - Bitcoin L2 Projects & current state of development.

Bitcoin Lightning Network adoption has had declines in many parameters, nodes, channels and network capacity as you can see below but I think LN is here to stay.
Bitcoin Lightning Network observer.
https://bitcoinvisuals.com/lightning

I don’t think it’s game over yet for LN, though there are underlying issues or concerns now with the UX, liquidity and centralisation which are actually true especially if the goal is to make bitcoin payments seem easy and fast.
Even bitcoin took years to develop to what it is now, if developers can improve the User Experience so that you don’t have to understand channels, routing or liquidity just to send and receive bitcoin, it’ll greatly improve the adoption.
The technicality of it is the only or biggest shortcoming, because the fundamental need which it is trying to solve is still very much valid.

I have been thinking about a solution like a delegated Lightning network where you have competing LPs and the wallet upon download automatically connects with several LPs. There should be competition between regarding liquidity, uptime, fees, routing success etc. As soon as the user has to put in effort, I think it is too big of a UX barrier. It depends of course, but talking about the smaller merchants around the corner, it doesn't feel right for them. But it should still be non-custodial and the user can choose a provider of Lightning infrastructure, or just go with the best rated or fastest or whatever else could be chosen.

It should actually be much more about automation, click and pay without having to worry. It should be somewhat similar to roaming, you buy a sim card and the infrastructure does the rest for you, you just choose the destination. And whatever is best for you, should receive and handle the request. I don't know what this would exactly look like, but it could be like having Bitcoin as L1 and then Lightning as L2 and then the competing infrastructure providers on L3 and the data regarding all the important details like available liquidity etc. should be pulled and processed in pretty much real time and the app should make the choice for you. It always depends on the amount you want to send, but all the small things like buying a coffee or maybe getting a haircut shouldn't require you to run a whole infrastructure yourself. That is what it feels like for those reading about LN for the first time.

The lighting network isn't dying from my knowledge. It is the best for me because it can be more liquid and more easily integrated into global finance.
So it is basically evolving just as Bitcoin is doing over the years and while users of lightening network may have more issues with the UX, large companies or institutions see its advantages when it comes to fulfilling the need of making international or across border payment settlements.

Saying LN a problem in search of a solution is honestly reaching. Remember when ordinal spams were a thing? a transaction could cost hundred of dollars, that kind of thing could repeat in the future because they are some kind of meme.

LN exist to solve that and just because the network fee has been getting low, it doesn't mean LN should be got rid of. If LN is as useless as you described, major exchanges like coinbase won't be using it to route Bitcoin withdrawals yet it's not only major exchanges that uses LN, even remittances and cross border payments services use it.

Keep in mind that in 2025 15% of Coinbase transactions use LN because it's apparently genuinely useful.

It clearly serves a purpose otherwise those big services would've deprecated LN withdrawal long time ago.

Although some argue that the Lightning Network has failed, I disagree, the network is actually facing the same adoption hurdles that credit cards and the internet once encountered.
In my opinion, there are currently two main obstacles "a UX that is still complicated" and "a lack of widespread merchant adoption". It's understandable that many coffee shops and restaurants still don't accept LN, as new technologies naturally take time to be adopted. Take credit cards for example, it took over a decade for them to become accepted at almost every store.

UX issues are often difficult for the average person to grasp; fortunately, some LN wallets have succeeded in making Bitcoin technology very easy for laypeople to use, without requiring them to understand the underlying technical complexities. However, it will still take time before the experience is truly as simple as using an e-wallet.The reason LN hasn't seen widespread adoption yet is the "chicken and egg" problem (merchants are waiting for users) and (users are waiting for merchants). However, the fact remains that LN is already being used for daily transactions within certain communities. This proves that the concept works.
I am convinced that LN still has a future because its foundation is solid. If UX issues are resolved and on-chain fees become increasingly expensive, it is highly likely that people will switch to LN for small, everyday transactions.