There is no transaction limit for lightning payments. The quantity of payments through Lightning is limited only by computing and network resources along the routes.
There are limitations on opening and closing the lightning channels. That's another issue which is being worked on in various ways. I'm not claiming it's a panacea, only one useful approach, out of potentially many.
Anyone who knows how routing on the internet works can explain to you why the internet requires trusted backbones to route, and even then packets are dropped and bad routes happen.
How then can a decentralized PAYMENT network preform better then routing on the trusted internet (which exists at layers below the lightening network)...
in an adversarial decentralized global payment network, information does not propagate instantaneously.
As transaction rates increase, race conditions will increasingly clog the network. There is no way to fix this as information takes time to travel across the network and because this is a payment network, all nodes are constantly shifting funds around. Optimizing away from race conditions inevitably requires a large enough pool of liquid capital that its only solution is for all nodes to connect to a single central hub, or a small number of centralized hubs large enough to support all users and all clients. This is not designed for a peer to peer system and there is no other solution. This can be verified though rudimentary modeling simulations of random nodes, and more so when node sizes are limited to what a normal person would have in a small amount of cash at any given time, or even a sum deposited into a checking account.
The way Lightening Network is designed, is predictably to benefit capital holders with enough excess capital to act as the backbone hubs. Normal users will be unable to bypass the Bitcoin banking/payment processor LN hubs and unable to reliably route though peer to peer paths on the LN.
This presumably is intended to enrich the Bitcoin oligarchs as a passive way to extract rent and wealth on the network simply for controlling existing capital.
This design choice indicates either a comic level of negligence, or intent to shift away from p2p to centralized information control.
I'm not going to pretend to understand the validity of your claims frankly because I don't.
I've seen some discussion of supposed possible race conditions on LN, apparently the gossip protocol is temporarily being used for routing and means there is no problem? (I'm a layman obviously.) But people seem to think that that will carry LN for long enough until an improved routing protocol is developed.
Do you have a source for your claims? I'm just seeing your hypothetical/theoretical scenario predicting doom, while there's dozens of people in multiple organisations working on lightning, and you're claiming they're all corruptly serving an "oligarchy" so it's your word against theirs.
Also afaik there's thousands of nodes on the live lightning network and it's essentially working.
If it was true that anyone with a basic understanding of race conditions can see the network won't work, then surely LN wouldn't get off the ground or would be being savaged on a hundred people's blog posts or what have you, and it's not.
So basically, I don't know if you're right but I'm finding it doubtful.
Sealioning (also spelled sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a
type of trolling or harassment which consists of
pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or
repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of
civility. The troll pretends ignorance and
feigns politeness, so that if the target is provoked
into making an angry response, the troll can then act as
the aggrieved party.
You're asking for a source when the flaw has clearly been spelled out for you.
Please feel free to prove my claims wrong, with any verifiable example.
You can't make baseless claims then call it abuse if someone asks for evidence.
My evidence, if you like, are all the people using live Bitcoins on LN right now, and the dozens of exceptionally bright people working full time on it.
Logically it follows it probably isn't fundamentally flawed if these things are happening.
Also, by your definition, you're "sea-lioning" too, by asking for evidencw.
What an absurd way to stop people questioning your claims.
If I was like you I'd just say you're lying and then when you dispute that, I'll claim you're abusing me.
There are limitations on opening and closing the lightning channels. That's another issue which is being worked on in various ways. I'm not claiming it's a panacea, only one useful approach, out of potentially many.