VISA vs Lightning Network

[seoincorporation]

Since the big news of Pompliano's suggestion for Kroger to implement Lighting Network in its stores after announcing that it's Smith's Food & Drug stores won't be accepting VISA cards due to the high fees, it's brought up a lot of discussions of what is next. So many other big companies have stopped accepting Visa and therefore it just makes sense, for lightning network to be the future. What do you guys think, will the process actually go through?

Is an interesting topic because bitcoin can't supplant Visa because the TPS (Transactions per second) in bitcoin is too low, but now with LN this is possible. And the LN fees are even lower than bitcoin transaction fees, so, we are talking about the future of the payments.

[1714875882]

1714875882

[1714875882]

1714875882

[1714875882]

1714875882

[1714875882]

1714875882

[franky1]

doomad
take your insults and go play around on some social drama forum

point being
10p and small % a certain group says is bad per tx

yet think $1-$20 per bitcoin tx is good
many are saying leave bitcoin at the 1mb base = ~2000tx a block
meaning requiring $20 to match a $40k blockreward in a scenario of there not being a block reward

if the only point you can knit pick is my not mentioning a small % number of visa... then your missing the point

so here is another point.. without being 'conservative' like i was before to just simplify things
would you use the Pound if it cost you £1-£20 per payment
would you use a paypal pound if it cost you £10-£200 a fortnight to set-up 5 accounts to make it effective to use.

if you want to be one of the guys that think making bitcoin $1+ per tx is a good thing then maybe you should aim your insults at yourself

[figmentofmyass]

point being
10p and small % a certain group says is bad per tx

yet think $1-$20 per bitcoin tx is good

for large transactions, credit cards are horrible. i've processed cards on behalf of nonprofits and such. hundreds of dollars evaporating from a single $10k or $15k transaction---that's insane.

clearly bitcoin's design shits on visa when it comes to high value transactions.

as for low value transactions? we're getting there. why are you talking about "$1-$20 per bitcoin tx" in the context of lightning? even if you include commitment and settlement tx, you know the average transaction costs using lightning will be much lower than that.

[DooMAD]

if the only point you can knit pick is my not mentioning a small % number of visa... then your missing the point

It's not a nitpick, it's annihilating your earlier balk at merchants paying $200 to become their own payment processor.  You said:

So for less than $200, you should be up and running accepting LN payments in your store..

wait... so for 4 years people been screaming that bitcoin is broke and cant scale because its too complicated and expensive to run 1 program on a pc

but now there is a solution involving running 3 programs.. but funnily one of which is the one that was supposedly too big to run.
and it just costs $200

OMG shocking.

And I rightly pointed out that there are a significant number of companies that could easily recoup that setup cost in a very short space of time if people use LN payments instead.  You simply don't understand how much these credit card middlemen are profiteering.  1.51% might not sound like much, but it's absolutely huge for some businesses.  The resulting savings would easily cover any costs from "running 3 programs" and still leave money to spare in the company coffers for other things. 

[franky1]

actually mr domad flip flopper
the point was that certain group over the last few years were/are saying BITCOIN is bad, bitcoin is broke because the hardware costs are so high that bitcoin needs to turn into 'server' only system just to be a node
so yea, i mentioned oh look only $200 to be a node.(guess i was being too subtle)

many people from a certain group love to over promote bitcoin as bad and LN as great, by wanting to keep the myth alive that node costs are now and will be massive.

again nope.. just $200 does the job..

the certain group yammer on that if the bitcoin networks blocks are only moved up incrementally over time because 8mb is bad and such
(dont even bother with the gigabyte by midnight rhetoric, thats so fake news 2015)
that no one can be a full node.
i then pointed out that terrabyt hard drives are cheap and the guy who said $200 initially was running more than just bitcoin node on his raspbi, thus again no big deal...

....
as for your then flip flop meander into the recouping the cost using LN.
just a couple days ago you were flopping in another topic that LN is not about getting fee's from being in LN
yet this topic today your now saying people using LN can get good income

it was actually me in that topic that was showing how average joe wont get much chance to recoup much as it would require 100,000 transactions to make 4cents at the current 1millisat fee(12th decimal). and most average joe wont have $300k to cover 100k of $3 coffee. i said that because a certain group was over promoting that LN is great for getting an income from it and people were wondering about getting income. you then flip flopped that no one is asking about LN income.. in the very topic where the op himself was mentioning about LN income


i was the one that said LN is designed for the big corporations to set up the factories, watchtowrs and hubs to maximise their income(return on investment) via LN and they already have strategies to maximise fee income without it appearing as high fee per hop. by them owning multiple hops around a service to multiply their income without having to increase price per hop
(something only the big corps can manage)

so please mr social drama flip flop. do your research think of a narrative you want to stick to and decide to stick to it.
as you seem very happy to not see coffee purchases on the bitcoin network and would find $1 a tx acceptable and only allowing 600k tx a day bitcoin network utility a good thing.

yes people like you seem very happy with a bitcoin fee war to push up bitcoin fee's
yet you rant about some small 1.5%+10p fee for fiat as being huge..

again realise the point of the post i made which was that $200 is not "bitcoin needs servers" cost just to be a node. im guessing i didnt write subtle sarcasm in a neon sign and explain the point as if you were a 5yo

again i find it soo overwhelmingly strange that you keep saying fee wars and small blocks that help push bitcoin fee's ar great and how LN, with its less secure non sovereign model is the solution to a problem caused by devs who want the commercial LN populated. rather than trying to care about the bitcoin network utility and sovereign model populated
again you want bitcoins network de-burdened of utility via high fee, low utility and the pretense of high hardware cost.
which shows you seem to not care about bitcoin at all. but seem very very very excited about a commercial non sovereign network designed purely for commercial gain

[DooMAD]

as for your then flip flop meander into the recouping the cost using LN.
just a couple days ago you were flopping in another topic that LN is not about getting fee's from being in LN
yet this topic today your now saying people using LN can get good income

Typical franky1 manipulative distortions.  I said savings you disingenuous faecal blemish.  Not Income.  You are the lying sack of excrement who says everyone supposedly wants to get rich from earning fees from LN transactions.  You've even accused me of wanting to get rich from earning LN fees in the past, because you were either too stupid to understand how it works, or too much of a liar to be honest about the fact that LN will not be a source of income (obviously you've changed your tune now that you realise how utterly wrong you were).  Everyone other than you is sticking with the truth, which is that Lightning allow users to spend less in on-chain fees and will allow merchants to find massive savings in paying less to Visa/Mastercard.  SAVINGS, NOT INCOME.  Find a braincell and use it if you can't figure out the difference between those two words.

it was actually me in that topic that was showing how average joe wont get much chance to recoup much as it would require 100,000 transactions to make 4cents at the current 1millisat fee(12th decimal). and most average joe wont have $300k to cover 100k of $3 coffee. i said that because a certain group was over promoting that LN is great for getting an income from it and people were wondering about getting income. you then flip flopped that no one is asking about LN income.. in the very topic where the op himself was mentioning about LN income

And as always you took things to extremes and talked about "getting rich", when absolutely no one else was talking about that.  You can't help but be a some sort of fanatical zealot.  You're the crypto equivalent of a hate-preaching religious crackpot.  Some people had the mistaken impression that it might mean a couple of bucks a month, when what they should have been thinking is a couple of pennies a month.  An honest mistake, easily corrected.  But there you were in a heartbeat attempting to blow things out of all proportion and make grandiose claims about "getting rich" that have absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever.  

Try being reasonable and balanced just for once.  You only claim people think it's "utopia" because you are only capable of seeing things in absolute extremes.  Just because someone might say something vaguely optimistic about LN, doesn't mean they're some sort of die-hard fanatic.  They do realise LN has limitations.  They recognise it's not perfect.  They understand there are some benefits with on-chain transactions that Lightning is unable to offer.  

Ultimately, Lightning is a compromise.  You know, a thing that people who aren't extremists are capable of doing.  Making concessions for the greater good.  Maybe consider giving it a try?  Your current tactics clearly aren't having the desired effect.

many people from a certain group love to over promote bitcoin as bad and LN as great, by wanting to keep the myth alive that node costs are now and will be massive.

We get it, Francis.  You want bigger blocks.  But you don't believe in it strongly enough to actually go ahead and do it, because you know you'd end up on a network by yourself as your ideas have hardly any support.  You can't find enough nodes on this chain who agree with you.  So you sit there sniping from the sidelines in a feeble attempt to make people think that SegWit and LN are bad, hoping in vain that it will bring people around to your way of thinking.  How's that working out for you?  After a few years now of trolling the boards and derailing topics left, right and centre, how many people have you rallied to your sad little cause?  

That "certain group" not saying Bitcoin is "bad".  This is another one of your extremist exaggerations.  They are saying there are realistic and legitimate concerns over scaling that need to be addressed, which is a sensible stance to adopt.  And the users here tend to agree with them for the most part.  If you don't like what that "certain group" are doing, there are several courses of action you can take:

• Not running their client.
• Not using SegWit.
• Not using Lightning.

But since you're doing all of that already and it still doesn't seem to be enough for you, I'll add the following to the list:

• Cry harder.
• Accept that consensus doesn't give you the power of veto, you are wholly impotent and there is literally nothing you can do to stop anyone working on LN
• Consider what it is you actually want and weigh up the benefits of finding another chain where you might actually agree with what the other nodes on the network are running and save the need for all your incessant whiny complaining, just because you can't get what you want here.

You are welcome to be a part of this network, but you need to acknowledge that the majority of those securing the chain do not share your views.  If you hate the BTC chain's chosen direction that much, why subject yourself to it freely?  What motivates you to stick around and follow a chain you fundamentally disagree with?  Users on this chain are currently stating irrefutably, 24/7 that this is what they want because these are the rules they are currently enforcing.  It would behoove you to respect consensus and stop being such a petulant child about it.  

[franky1]

Typical franky1 manipulative distortions.  I said savings you disingenuous faecal blemish.  Not Income.  You are the lying sack of excrement who says everyone supposedly wants to get rich from earning fees from LN transactions.  You've even accused me of wanting to get rich from earning LN fees in the past, because you were either too stupid to understand how it works, or too much of a liar to be honest about the fact that LN will not be a source of income (obviously you've changed your tune now that you realise how utterly wrong you were).  Everyone other than you is sticking with the truth, which is that Lightning allow users to spend less in on-chain fees and will allow merchants to find massive savings in paying less to Visa/Mastercard.  SAVINGS, NOT INCOME.  Find a braincell and use it if you can't figure out the difference between those two words.

bitcoin was the system of offering savings. but the devs took out them mechanisms. and are now trying all strategies they can to make bitcoin sound bad as a payment method just to promote another network.
and yes that included THEM advertising LN as a way to make income. THEY even talked about how mining pools can supplement their income by being LN nodes.(hint all THEIR words... not mine)

but hey your more interested in social drama insults of a username 'franky1' then you are of actually researching bitcoin things just check out all your posts with insults. vs posts talking about bitcoin.

once you realise you are insulting a username that has no birth certificate, you will maybe realise your insults are empty. and that you are wasting your time getting so emotional. then i hope you spend more time researching bitcoin, understanding bitcoin and maybe eventually caring about bitcoin

....

And as always you took things to extremes and talked about "getting rich", when absolutely no one else was talking about that.  

actually i was the one telling people that they would need to do 100k transactions to get 4cents.

Try being reasonable and balanced just for once.  You only claim people think it's "utopia" because you are only capable of seeing things in absolute extremes.

your the one happy to make bitcoin become unusable and have LN as the gateway away from the stifled bitcoin
your the one that only thinks 1mb or 1 gigabyte. for years i have said there are many ways to scale bitcoin, that DO NOT involve gigabytes by midnight.
your the one that thinks and promotes bitcoin as eventually leading to server required blockchain management. yet i was the one saying actually its only $200 to be a node and stats show that incremental growth is not a problem...

you seem to flip flop soo much your forgetting which narrative you have personally promoted..

oh and as for me not mentioning the 1.5% in addition to $0.10.. because on a coffee/microtransaction. 1.5% is negligable and UNIMPORTANT
but its you that seem to go to extremes of talking up the 1.5% to extreme numbers.
your words "hundreds of dollars" when you explained how you view 1.5%
seems you dont understand the purpose of LN was for microtransaction meaning the expectations of bitcoin 2009-2015 were sub 10cents. and the expectations of LN are meant to be sub 10cents.. so i have no clue why your getting emotional in regards to small 1.5% of insignificant amount thus not even worth mentioning

oh and i must add.. if you did actually work for a call centre which each employee does thousands of £ a day.. then your working either in a fak company you made up, or for a company that has no clue about its own costs. if it has not negociated its transaction fee's down to 2p+0.7% then the company you supposedly work for deserves staff like you working for it.
but thats beside the point..

point being 10pense/cent fee per transaction or less is the average expectation. and so people like you saying visa charging over 10pence/cent is bad.. but charging for bitcoiners $1 is good is YOUR FLAW and your flip flop

 
oh and as for me wanting bitcoin scaling.. there are again many ways of achieving it. im emphasising and repeating it. because its you that jumps to the "big blocker" mantra of exaggeration

now go play your social flip flops elsewhere. or atleast remember your flip flops and stick with one narrative
because you dug yourself a hole mis understanding my subtle point about $200 to run a node.. and now ur just digging yourself a bigger hole with your insults and flip flops.

[Artemis3]

Since the big news of Pompliano's suggestion for Kroger to implement Lighting Network in its stores after announcing that it's Smith's Food & Drug stores won't be accepting VISA cards due to the high fees, it's brought up a lot of discussions of what is next. So many other big companies have stopped accepting Visa and therefore it just makes sense, for lightning network to be the future. What do you guys think, will the process actually go through?

VISA requires you to enter the banking system, you must not be in a black list over debt, for example. VISA needs you to manually sign receipts, and they used to charge 5% (it went up recently, don't know how much).

With Bitcoin, even without LN the fee could be about 3~10 cents (rarely above 1000 Satoshis). Using a payment processor it might be something under 1%.

What is the point of having an ultra fast network that charges outrageous fees and forces you to be in the banking system? Ie. open a Bank account, demonstrate you have good credit, and be hold back arbitrarily not to what money you actually have but what they decide you could be able to buy?

Actually a credit card is a poor payment system, designed in the 50ies. Most people don't need credit, what they need is electronic paymen, which is why debit cards are far more convenient. But still...

Debit cards need you to be in the banking system. Opening bank accounts is not easy or trivial, and depending on country it is a bureaucratic nightmare. Service bill? Identification papers? But i don't even live in this country... No account for you, no debit/credit card either, Etc.

All that banking nonsense goes away with Bitcoin. Visa doesn't hold a candle against the freedom Bitcoin gives.

LN is the icing on the cake, nearly zero instant fees.

[hunk5325]

great

[tunapa]

Things will change with time. Adoption is not so easy and it does take a lot of time. This is what we have to know about the LN being adopted ahead of VISA. At first we might not see many people use it because of the early difficulty that comes with things like that but gradually people will learn it and get used to it.

[CaVO32]

Since the big news of Pompliano's suggestion for Kroger to implement Lighting Network in its stores after announcing that it's Smith's Food & Drug stores won't be accepting VISA cards due to the high fees, it's brought up a lot of discussions of what is next. So many other big companies have stopped accepting Visa and therefore it just makes sense, for lightning network to be the future. What do you guys think, will the process actually go through?

VISA requires you to enter the banking system, you must not be in a black list over debt, for example. VISA needs you to manually sign receipts, and they used to charge 5% (it went up recently, don't know how much).

With Bitcoin, even without LN the fee could be about 3~10 cents (rarely above 1000 Satoshis). Using a payment processor it might be something under 1%.

What is the point of having an ultra fast network that charges outrageous fees and forces you to be in the banking system? Ie. open a Bank account, demonstrate you have good credit, and be hold back arbitrarily not to what money you actually have but what they decide you could be able to buy?

Actually a credit card is a poor payment system, designed in the 50ies. Most people don't need credit, what they need is electronic paymen, which is why debit cards are far more convenient. But still...

Debit cards need you to be in the banking system. Opening bank accounts is not easy or trivial, and depending on country it is a bureaucratic nightmare. Service bill? Identification papers? But i don't even live in this country... No account for you, no debit/credit card either, Etc.

All that banking nonsense goes away with Bitcoin. Visa doesn't hold a candle against the freedom Bitcoin gives.

LN is the icing on the cake, nearly zero instant fees.

i would go for LN no doubt as i myself doesn't use a credit card anymore. because i already learned my lesson long time ago using credit card that incurred me to a hefty debt. i know it's my fault but yeah, they charge a freaking unreasonable penalties.

but on a different note, i like the convo of DooMAD and franky. it is so entertaining i just learned many things from them. 

[muratsink]

I think that is a good idea, especially today. Lightning Netwok can make transactions easier, faster and safer. LTC began operating the Lightning network transaction last year. The visa has limited functions and lightning networks are not limited to technology.

[pushups44]

It's hard to predict how the Lightning Network will play out in terms of adoption, but clearly more development is needed to make it commercially useful. We need lean LN clients. Given how greedy Visa is with fees, I can see at a bare minimum LN gaining a significant market share over time.

[franky1]

point being
10p and small % a certain group says is bad per tx

yet think $1-$20 per bitcoin tx is good

for large transactions, credit cards are horrible. i've processed cards on behalf of nonprofits and such. hundreds of dollars evaporating from a single $10k or $15k transaction---that's insane.

clearly bitcoin's design shits on visa when it comes to high value transactions.

as for low value transactions? we're getting there. why are you talking about "$1-$20 per bitcoin tx" in the context of lightning? even if you include commitment and settlement tx, you know the average transaction costs using lightning will be much lower than that. for now

FTFY.. remember the 2009-2013 ethos of bitcoin 'virtually free tx' then suddenly devs decided certain groups needed fee's so they started messing with code to push a fe war.. dont expect LN to be 'virtually free' forever
also if you add it all up to have a reliable chance of successful payment you need to split your value over more than one channel = more than one set of open/close session costs. which under th assumption of a conservative $1 btc tx fee onchain.. for the 'buy coffee' scenario of LN if you add it all up and think about just 1 coffee a day for a fortnight. (14 coffees) and you needing say 5 channels for reliable routing ($10 open close(5x$1 open, 5x$1 close)) thats not mathematically lower than 10cent costs all in.
even if btc onchain fee's were 10 cents.. its still ends up after a fortnight all costs(many channels) added all in is much higher than 10cents
(and no, dont automatically think you only need 1 channel connected to starbucks.. coz starbucks wont want millions of users direct conncted to starbucks (DDoS risk) so they will set up layers of hubs and hops (much like websites use cloudflare) so expect to need to be a few hops away, meaning more chance each of those hops gtting de-funded/going offline, thus needing more than one channel to have a different route to starbucks should one route go down)

..
anyway the way i start to view the open/close costs is more like a membership fee to buy a channel. and many people have started using that mantra too of the cost to buy yourself into LN before actually getting to use it. they are especially using it in context of buying a channel via factories
let alone once in... some value is then locked off from being spendable by yourself so that further hits how much you can buy when you decide you want to put $60 towards LN. you WONT get to come out the other side after buying a $3 coffee with $56.90 nor can you just put in $3.10 and think you can get a $3 coffee pay the LN fe and get out all clear
...

I think that is a good idea, especially today. Lightning Netwok can make transactions easier, faster and safer. LTC began operating the Lightning network transaction last year. The visa has limited functions and lightning networks are not limited to technology.

lightning network has got limitations
did you know that LN dosnt want channels to be filled with thousands of dollars. they actually have code that limit value per channel. much like ATMS limit your spend per day.
the requirement of multiple channels because of issues that just running a singl channel has limitations
as for technology limitations. there are many. its why the 'hop' model has issues. and why hub and factories and other models are then developed. but even they dont allow unlimited use

[DooMAD]

did you know that LN dosnt want channels to be filled with thousands of dollars. they actually have code that limit value per channel. much like ATMS limit your spend per day.

Except that, unlike bank ATMs, options are currently being developed for future versions of Lightning to give users the ability to opt out of those channel limits, providing both participants in the channel agree.  I encourage people to look this up and discern the facts for themselves. 

[franky1]

did you know that LN dosnt want channels to be filled with thousands of dollars. they actually have code that limit value per channel. much like ATMS limit your spend per day.

Except that, unlike bank ATMs, options are currently being developed for future versions of Lightning to give users the ability to opt out of those channel limits, providing both participants in the channel agree.  I encourage people to look this up and discern the facts for themselves. 

and people can avoid the VISA ATM limit by walking into a bank branch and making a personal agreement with their attached bank direct to be able to handle more than the limit of an ATM..

but hey the dev's do love to pull strings especially with all the limitations they are putting into bolts
the wholepoint of bolts is a set of rules that the main nodes obide by to avoid fluctuations of disagreement.
yes bolts right now is just seen as a concept/policy. but if LN becomes popular nodes end up being more strictly following it or find out they get 'punished' because by not following it ends up in the predicament devs are seeing now where payment success rates are low due to route imbalances
so as for doomad saying options for future to allow opt out.. there are also options for future to make bolts more of a law than just a flimsy policy(the opposite of easy opt-out)

[figmentofmyass]

for large transactions, credit cards are horrible. i've processed cards on behalf of nonprofits and such. hundreds of dollars evaporating from a single $10k or $15k transaction---that's insane.

clearly bitcoin's design shits on visa when it comes to high value transactions.

as for low value transactions? we're getting there. why are you talking about "$1-$20 per bitcoin tx" in the context of lightning? even if you include commitment and settlement tx, you know the average transaction costs using lightning will be much lower than that. for now

FTFY.. remember the 2009-2013 ethos of bitcoin 'virtually free tx' then suddenly devs decided certain groups needed fee's so they started messing with code to push a fe war.. dont expect LN to be 'virtually free' forever

quite the opposite. hard forking to remove the block size limit would be more appropriately termed "messing with the code". the fee market emerged as a result of the block size limit added by satoshi---and thank goodness he added it. the total bitcoin supply is nearly fully mined now and if fees don't start picking up the slack, the system will never be sustainable.

why don't you explain how lightning is going to become expensive to use? unlike bitcoin, it has no real mechanism to drive fees up. the transactions savings achieved by lightning are only limited by the amount you're willing to commit to payment channels. it's plain to see there is potentially very significant savings compared to bitcoin, especially when you consider that a single onchain payment to a merchant can open a lightning channel with that merchant for future payments.

[killat]

Since the big news of Pompliano's suggestion for Kroger to implement Lighting Network in its stores after announcing that it's Smith's Food & Drug stores won't be accepting VISA cards due to the high fees, it's brought up a lot of discussions of what is next. So many other big companies have stopped accepting Visa and therefore it just makes sense, for lightning network to be the future. What do you guys think, will the process actually go through?

Even when visa cards came into market it was a revolutionary solution and people were rather sceptical about it but today everyone is using it.

I thing the same will be for lightning network. It is cheaper and faster, and it's just a matter of time till mass adoption.

[franky1]

quite the opposite. hard forking to remove the block size limit would be more appropriately termed "messing with the code". the fee market emerged as a result of the block size limit added by satoshi---and thank goodness he added it. the total bitcoin supply is nearly fully mined now and if fees don't start picking up the slack, the system will never be sustainable.

why don't you explain how lightning is going to become expensive to use? unlike bitcoin, it has no real mechanism to drive fees up. the transactions savings achieved by lightning are only limited by the amount you're willing to commit to payment channels. it's plain to see there is potentially very significant savings compared to bitcoin, especially when you consider that a single onchain payment to a merchant can open a lightning channel with that merchant for future payments.

seems you been reading too much reddit
fees dont need to rise onchain especially not this decade...
thats why the supply demand of the coin which causes the coins value to increase can keep things going for decades. EG if price of bitcoin 4 years ago is now 2x as high means that it still equals the same income even with a reward halving

reality is price vs 4 years ago is more then 2x so the value available for mining is more than the last halving.
thus no need to supplement the reward with fees as the reward is still high enough, the market:mining deflation can take care of itself and will do so for decades

th only reason for th whole 'fee' drama this decade is to pus an agenda that the bitcoin network aint any good. and the only reason its pushed as being not very good, is because devs have limited bitcoins utility/desire

de burdening the bitcoin network and pushing the bitcoin network fee up wont help miners either... think about it
.....
there are many mechanisms and limitations in LN that will push the LN fee's up.
just think about the whole economics of LN,
imagine it a route(hop) only has $60 in its channel and its going to cost that route(hop) $2 to close and reopen a new channel when the funds are depleted. why would they only charge $0.0000004 to allow someone elses $3 coffee to go through a router.
to the router. that $60 he has is like 20 payments of coffee they can allow. so knowing it will cost $2 to re-session the channel they will want to break even. so it ends up costing the initial guy 10cents just to cover the costs of channel re-sessions for 1 coffee

ask yourself, honestly would you allow routing using your value if it means you cant use your funds yourself, AND it cost you extra to allow it.

what will happen is a 'open market' where the route value available gets calculated so that it covers costs for the router

math formulae will come forth like such as:
if $60 in channel... $2 resession cost /60 = fee per $ routed =10cent LN fee per $1 required to be sent
if $600 in channel... $2 resession cost /600 = fee per $ routed =1cent LN fee per $1 required to be sent

so this is where hubs with large reserves between other hubs end up with the cheapest route fee's
but unless th initial guy wanting coffee has many channels to have the potential of having a multiple choice of routes, then it will find itself not paying super low prices of $0.0000004 per hop.
the only way to pay $0.0000004 per hop is if each router on the route had $X00k reserves to cover.. which wont be the case

..
in short. do some research, run some scenarios and you will see that paying 0.000000000001 (12th decimal(millisat)) per hop wont be a normal thing

[DooMAD]

why don't you explain how lightning is going to become expensive to use? unlike bitcoin, it has no real mechanism to drive fees up. the transactions savings achieved by lightning are only limited by the amount you're willing to commit to payment channels. it's plain to see there is potentially very significant savings compared to bitcoin, especially when you consider that a single onchain payment to a merchant can open a lightning channel with that merchant for future payments.

*goes off on a tangent, throws in some vague predictions based on nothing and generally doesn't actually answer the question*

So you can't explain how Lightning is going to become expensive to use?  That's what we thought.

in short. do some research, run some scenarios and you will see that paying 0.000000000001 (12th decimal(millisat)) per hop wont be a normal thing

Pretty sure no one was saying it would be a normal thing, but okay.  Thank you for once again pointing out the extremes that obviously won't apply in real life.  If nothing else, you're good for that.