The talk about Bitcoin scalability and whether the Lightning Network can handle the load is always a hot topic. Peter Todd has already done some math showing that, with current technology, Lightning can support hundreds of millions of users. But of course, not everyone agrees.

The main criticism is that Bitcoin might end up becoming a system only for the rich because Lightning, as efficient as it is, might not handle global demand. If that happens, people will end up relying on custodial solutions like banks and exchanges, bringing us back to the same old story of the traditional system: fractional reserve risks, centralized control, and the nightmare of losing access to your own funds.

Another tricky point is security. Everyone says the ideal is to hold your own keys, but in reality, that’s way harder than it sounds. Store the seed phrase? Where? In a bank? In the backyard? And what if the hardware device gets compromised? What if the M-of-N scheme fails? In the end, most people won’t be able to handle all that and will end up trusting third parties anyway.

Then comes the softfork debate. The people pushing for it believe the only way out is to increase the network’s capacity by changing Bitcoin’s structure. But that could also open up new security risks, and honestly, do we really need that right now? The "YAGNI" (You Ain't Gonna Need It) principle makes sense here: don’t mess with the code unless there’s no other way.

Bottom line, but far from a conclusion, Lightning Network can definitely support a lot of users, but will that keep Bitcoin decentralized the way we want? Or are we heading towards a model where only a few hold the majority’s funds? The best path might be to keep improving the tech gradually, without rushing to change everything at once. Let’s see how this story unfolds!