I'm also having great hopes for the Lightning Network. Whatever the bigblockers say, I do believe we do need 2nd layer solutions. However, many small-blockers are hailing Lightning as the silver bullet for solving network capacity problems - but I really don't think the Lightning Network will be any silver bullet.

• Many big-blockers are using the phrase "vaporware"; if I've understood it right we do have "proof-of-concept", but it's a long, long way until we can get "lightning support" into the more popular wallets.

• (Lack of) network effect - I believe that in one year time it will still be more probable that two arbitrary parties can transact through some alt-coin than through lightning.

• The lightning network do need some on-chain capacity - moving bitcoins into the lightning network takes two on-chain transactions if I've understood it correctly, and if one is not able to close the lightning channel the funds aren't secure. With bitcoin fees just growing and growing, this may be a major problem.

• One has to move funds into the lightning network to be able to use it there, and out of the lightning network to be able to use it as bitcoins (if I've understood it right). With this constraint, the Lightning Network is not much different from being an alt-coin - one can move "bitcoins" around using i.e. ripple, bitshares, ethereum and probably lots of other altcoins.

• Centralization risk; the easiest way to get connected to the lightning network in any meaningful way will probably be to connect to the largest hub available. Hence we'll end up with one (or in best case a handful) of hubs routing almost all of the traffic.