(This is dependent on the number of transactions made,

make a single transaction on LN and you paid more than a single onchain bitcoin transaction.

You have to make multiple transactions to the exact same person to save the most on fees.)

You are confused between direct payment channels and the actual Lightning

**Network**. Having such a network is the whole point of solving the direct payment channels issue you pointed out. You can learn more about the Lightning Network

here.

To answer the question : using the Lightning network is viable if you expect to do more than 2 payments using it. You will in practice have to pay some additional on-chain transactions to reload your channels.

Actually you're confused.

Make a single LN transaction and you pay one onchain transaction fee to bitcoin network and then the LN transaction fee (per hub used), and then 1 onchain transaction fee to redeem your coins onchain.

Which means a single onchain transaction without LN would have been cheaper (as only a single onchain transaction charged)

However make 20 to 200 LN transactions to the

*same* person and you saved greatly in fees.

Using LN without planning can not only cost you more , but also increase the number of onchain transactions.

LN is not a magic solution, it only relieves fee costs and decreases onchain transactions if used

*wisely*.

Which in LN case is multiple transactions between the same parties over and over again.

FYI: Maybe read the link next time so you get it.

I'll be working up a comparison at a later date,

based on most likely amounts locked in each of the 3 solutions and how many offchain transactions are really available,

after a

*glancing* look, the thought that thousands of transactions will occur per deposit on LN appears to be extremely overstated except possibility for micro-payments of less than a penny, before new funding is required.

Some preliminary thoughts are a person deposit $200 in their account and spending the entire amount.

Exchange: 1 onchain transaction and possibility a 2nd (optional) onchain transaction withdraw by vendor

Gift Card : only 1 onchain transaction required

LN : 2 onchain transaction required per party

In a normal US person, a funding of $200

would allow $40 transaction for gas, $120 transaction for electricity , four $10 restaurant visits =$40

$200 on Exchange , spent on the above

1 onchain to fund account and 1 onchain withdrawl by gas station and 1 onchain withdrawal and 4 onchain withdrawals by 4 different restaurants.

So we have a possible 7 maximum onchain transactions,

however, since withdrawals can be grouped from multiple users at a weekly or monthly basis,

by only withdrawing large amounts, the total onchain transactions can be reduced greatly

$200 on Gift Cards , spent on the above

Only 1 onchain transaction required, the other transactions occur on the gift card network

*(For the Purpose of this example the gift card is a Refillable Visa Debit Card accepted at multiple vendors) *$200 on LN , spent on the above

2 onchain transactions Person, 2 onchain transactions Gas Station, 2 onchain Electric Company, 8 onchain transactions from 4 separate restaurants

6 offchain transactions total

When you look at the above it becomes apparent that gift cards are superior in reducing the # of onchain transactions

over Exchanges and LN. In the above Scenario :

Gift Cards: 1 onchain transaction required

Exchange : 7 onchain transactions , if none of the companies group their withdrawals with others

LN : 14 onchain transactions

Just using the onchain blockchain alone and paying the gas station, electric company, 4 separate restaurants directly onchain,

requires 6 onchain transactions.

So anyone really wanting to cut down on the # of onchain transactions would use gift cards over exchanges and LN.

Other Factors may be more important for the individual on which they choose , but gift cards win decreasing onchain transactions hands down for the normal individual.

You also notice that anyone using LN for normal life purchases such as gas, electricity , restaurants,

end up generating *more* onchain transactions by trying to use LN offchain network,

than if they just paid the vendors directly onchain. FYI:

For 1000 transactions to take place on LN, from a $200 deposit

each transaction would have to be worth no more than 20 cents each offchain transaction.

Which brings up a question, what are people buying that is only worth 20 cents? * Even a single 20oz bottle of coke cola is ~$2.00 *

If a person only used LN to buy meals at the same restaurant, of no more than $10 per visit,

you can squeeze 20 offchain transactions out of it, using only 4 onchain transactions, saving 16 onchain transactions,

however if those visits were to 20 different restaurants,

those 20 offchain transactions would be using 40 onchain transactions, a loss of 20 onchain transactions verses paying onchain only.

**The above brings an interesting development, LN users that don't consciously plan their transactions to maximize offchain transaction over onchain transactions could actually generate more onchain transactions than if they paid directly onchain and potentially nullify any transactions reduction that LN could have provided. ***Note onchain transactions reduction would still be far more if you used a gift card instead.*

FYI: At some point you people will finally realize that LN is not for you,

LN is for the Banks to Transact with each other, as they make thousands of payments between themselves daily.

LN was designed for them not the average joe on the street.

LN is Banking 2.0 .