Yes and I am in 100% agreement with these words before the thugs get sent in as usual to protect the other members of the congregation
and maybe it's time to see some good faith coming from the miners who thought they could rip us off for transactions fees and let them
provide lightning free of charge until a real fix by the development team is put in place to make on-block transactions scale.

We did not change the rules and forget about the excuse of China, Korea or Putin, it was fees that crashed Bitcoin price, plot it on a
graph to get a prognosis of what went wrong.

No not at all because the damage had been done and what will go down in our history books written next to the
section on Tulip Mania is that fees peeked at $55 and following this logic the BTC price should had been £500k
eight years ago.

Took years for main stream to trust digital coins, that trust has been destroyed completely for short term
miner greed and unfortunately BTC has dragged other coins  down instead of upwards like in the past and ETH
had a scaling problem but the miners acted sensible and didn't hike up fees to deal with it.

Any currency used for the exchange of good needs a stable price and the days of 1000% p.a returns will be over as
crypto-coins mature so I will look for a phoenix to rise that might for all I know be bound to the physical price of
gold or oil and not just paper oil/gold that's worth nothing to me.

Each business that accepts payments via Lightning will understandably have lots of nodes connected to it.  Each customer they have may elect to open a channel with them if that turns out to be the most convenient and cost-effective option.  It doesn't necessarily imply 'banks'.  

If you count the average number of times each week you buy something from a company versus the number of times you buy or sell something privately with another individual, it's likely that businesses will be the higher number.  So it stands to reason that more channels will be open with businesses than with other individuals.