I would not touch the argument about bitcoin cash. I was indeed interested why, from these weird perspective, Lightning fails, and how.

Here some details:

CHAPTER 03: The Fundamental Problems with Lightning NetworkCHAPTER 03: The Fundamental Problems with Lightning Network

Structural Flaws Baked Into the Design: Lightning Network introduced radical new complexity on top of Bitcoin. That complexity comes with deep structural problems that cannot be patched away.

● Always-Online Requirement
To receive LN payments and monitor for channel fraud, nodes must be online continuously. Most users must trust a third-party 'watchtower' service — reintroducing custodial risk.

● Capital Lockup
Funds in Lightning channels must be locked for the channel's duration. This capital cannot earn yield, cannot be spent elsewhere, and is subject to smart contract bugs.

● Inbound Liquidity Problem
To receive payments, users need inbound liquidity. New users have none by default, creating a significant onboarding barrier.

● Routing Failures
LN payments must find a viable path through the network. Research consistently shows larger payments frequently fail to route.

● Fees for Watchtowers & Routing
Cumulative costs of routing, watchtowers, and on-chain channel opens/closes can exceed BCH transaction costs.

● Forced Channel Closures
If a counterparty disappears or acts maliciously, users face on-chain Bitcoin fees and days-long timelock disputes — with funds inaccessible.

CHAPTER 04: Developer Testimonies: LN's Own Creators Speak OutCHAPTER 04: Developer Testimonies: LN's Own Creators Speak Out

Some of the most damning critiques of the Lightning Network have come not from its opponents, but from its own architects and active contributors.

“The Lightning Network is not a complete solution. It requires significant user sophistication and capital allocation. Routing payments reliably at scale remains an unsolved computer science problem.”
^{— Joseph Poon, LN White Paper Co-author, developer discussions}

Poon acknowledged that the routing problem — finding payment paths through a decentralized network with dynamic liquidity — was unsolved at publication and remains largely unsolved today.

“We're still very much in the early days. There are a lot of hard problems to solve — watchtower protocols, routing, liquidity management. These aren't solved problems. Anyone telling you LN is ready for mass adoption is being premature.”
^{— Olaoluwa Osuntokun ('Roasbeef'), CTO Lightning Labs — developer forums & podcasts}

“I warned people years ago not to put significant amounts of money into Lightning wallets. The protocol has edge cases that can lead to loss of funds. It is not consumer-ready in the way that regular Bitcoin is.”
^{— Rusty Russell, Core Lightning Developer — multiple public statements}

Russell, one of the most respected LN technical figures, has repeatedly cautioned users about real financial risks from protocol bugs and edge cases.

“Building on Lightning is genuinely hard. The tooling is immature, the failure modes are complex, and educating users about payment channel mechanics is nearly impossible. We've had to build significant infrastructure just to hide Lightning's complexity from end users.”
^{— André Neves, CTO ZEBEDEE — public developer interviews, 2023}

Conclusion: What True Scaling Looks Like

The Lightning Network was sold as the inevitable future of Bitcoin payments. Years of development, hundreds of millions in venture capital, and the full weight of Bitcoin Core's endorsement later — the results are undeniable.

LN's own developers have publicly acknowledged that routing remains unsolved, that the system is not consumer-ready, and that significant funds can be lost to protocol bugs and attacks. Independent researchers have documented attack after attack with no complete solutions.

...

Key TakeawaysKey Takeaways

• ✔  Lightning Network was designed to solve a problem created by Bitcoin Core's arbitrary block size cap — not an inherent Bitcoin limitation.
• ✔  LN's own developers have publicly warned that it is not consumer-ready and carries real financial risk.
• ✔  Documented security attacks show LN's security model is fundamentally weaker than base-layer
  Bitcoin.
• ✔  LN has failed to achieve meaningful transaction volume after nearly a decade of development.