No clue where you got that from but satoshi expressed in his emails that he was under the impression that bitcoin would scale on its own in the early days.
Just like he tough that millions of people would us their desktop to mine and therefore decentralization would only ever increase over time.
"Most transactions cancel out at the account
level. The binks demand bitcoins of each other only
because they don't want to hold account money for too
long. So a relatively small amount of bitcoins
infrequently transacted can support a somewhat larger
amount of account money frequently transacted."
This is simply not possible on bitcoin unless you have wallets holding money from many people. At which point you no longer own your wallet.
There is no way Tx of average humans would significantly cancel out within the time of a block.
Thats why LN just makes the time to settlement "infinite" and that's why it partially increases centralization again to cancel out more Tx. If that was the goal it could have been implemented in layer 1.
Anyway all that aside, lets just assume LN would work as perfectly as the devs hope it will do one day. Its sill way worse than existing FBA solutions that can handle most of this on layer 1 directly and already have fully working second layer (payment channels) implemented. Even if bitcoin and LN could eventually provide a similar good solution, whats the point if it already exists and why would anyone assume the existing solutions stop evolving while bitcoin and LN slowly catches up?
If we assume LN has reached all its goals in 10 years it also means the goals are outdated by 10 years.
We can arguing about what LN may be capable of doing one day but its never gonna be a valid argument against solution that deliver today.
Lightning network is just a brand name for the cryptography that was needed to make Satoshi’s payment channels work.
So, while Satoshi’s opinion isnt really relevant to bitcoin’s future, since you brought it up, Satoshi clearly didn't think layer one was the inly way yo go.
That right, its not relevant. He was wrong on many tings and right on many others.
Still what LN may or may not be able to deliver is also not relevant as an argument against existing solutions that deliver today.
