People have realized this a long time ago. The expected configuration is a node-based network like the internet. Messages (money) hop from "router" to "router" until they reach their final destinations through the shortest paths. The "bank" would still be your bitcoin wallet, while your lightning allocation would be like a credit account with every vendor simultaneously. The nodes are routers. The amount you put "at-risk" in lighting only needs to be a minimum amount you need to transact for the day/week/month - and it is not really "at-risk" since there are strong protections built-in.

The general story is that not all transactions are equal. A payment from your cousin for a poker debt doesn't need the fury of a million computers protecting it. Similarly if you have an ongoing relationship with a vendor, and many other examples. In real-life there are vastly differing trust-profiles between transactions. It's ok to trade some security for some efficiency sometimes. It doesn't make sense to treat them all the same.

Seems like what I expected. Core Dev team of Bitcoin has corrupted that project completely. It’s a shame that Hal Finney/Nakamoto went away so early.

This rests on the amazing assumption that Bitcoin will replace all currency everywhere somehow.

This is why I can’t get Bitcoiners - their assumptions are always over the top “we will take 100% of gold’s value” “nations will dissolve because of Bitcoin” or something of that order.

Compare that to ETH - people will build decentralised applications and ETH will be the currency in those applications. Stakers get a fee.

Simple.