1. LN is not dependant on bitcoins network
LN nodes can still run without bitcoin network. they let litecoin users in vertcoin users. and other coins too..
so if there was not one single instance of a bitcoin node chainhashing a channel.. people can still use LN via other coins.
That's irrelevant. Channels based on commitment transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain are dependent on Bitcoin as part of the security model.
2. smart contracts are putting funds into a contract that requires more than one signature.
its about time some people do some independant research and not just skim the surface of promotional material they read
People like you! "Multi-signature contract" =/= "2-of-3 contract where LN factory holds 2 keys and can steal your coins"
3. in the latest concept (not the outdated 2016 promotional over promising, under commiting material).
bitcoins are to be locked into factoriees(fortknx-esq elitist) contracts. and its the factories that hand out NON blockchain confirmed 'payments' to users. and then those users use those non-confirmed payments to open and close channels with a partner. and at settlement. the non-confirmed close session is handed back to a factory where by the factory aggregates the totals and the factory can:
a. sign off on either a broadcast back to a blockchain.
or
b.sign a fresh non-confirmed 'payment' to a user to open a fresh channel, without having to broadcast back to the blockchain
What's your point? "Factories" don't "hand out payments" unilaterally. Updating channel state requires the signature of both parties in a bidirectional channel, otherwise the last state is settled to the blockchain. I don't see the problem you're pointing out here. Both parties can either agree to settle the channel, keep the channel open, or one side can unilaterally close the channel.
Not having to broadcast every transaction to the blockchain is great!
its this stage 3.b. that will play out as the "well bitcoin is heavy and expensive fe to confirm and slow to confirm so much better to not use bitcoins blockchain (the 18th century.. ("dont claim back your gold, here have some crisp fresh uncrinkled promissory notes and stay within the LN system, while we look after the gold)
That would be a bad thing
if Lightning required trust or intermediaries. Since it doesn't, it lives up to Bitcoin's purpose.
Like DooMAD pointed out, your argument boils down to this: "LN is too good, it makes Bitcoin look bad." That argument sucks.
