Could it be that the Bitcoin Cash community is wrong about Lightning Network?

I am a hobbyist writer, and I have written extensible about why Bitcoin Cash has a chance and why people should switch from other altcoins into BCH, based on the assumption that at some point, people will need a peer to peer currency that acts as such and that has meager fees so that the users can use the network as a payment network, and not a store of value or settlement.

I am researching incoming Lightning Network channel liquidity to understand how Bitcoin is trying to onboard users into LN and how it could be possible for the most unfortunate soul to participate in the system regardless of whether your salary is $2 a day or more. Pretty much, I am researching if poor people will be able to transact using BTC as it stands right now and what could change in the future.

I was able to pay for incoming channel liquidity utilizing LNBIG services and only paid $1 or around 0.000025BTC to have a channel opened to my remote node running with Zap Wallet. At the moment is the best solution for private channels on a PC. Unfortunately, the most up-to-date wallet for Android is not working fine (Simple Bitcoin Wallet), so it is impossible to do what I did with smartphones, thanks to applications not being able to work with incoming channels.

I sent some satoshis to my channel for just 0.00002818 or around $1.25, and the transaction fees were not that bad.

So now I have a channel I can use, save on transaction fees, and have liquidity of at least 0.003BTC. As long as on-chain prices are below 0.001BTC, I will be golden, and my channel will perform just like any other. I have control over my keys, and I can choose to open channels to other nodes, so I am covered when it comes to privacy, but not all is roses.

My channel can be closed at any moment, and I must continuously use my channel if I want to keep my channel open, and I could have locked liquidity if on-chain fees ever go up in satoshis terms. And I must add that LN also has the issues of payments not going through thanks to your node not finding a path or a route to send your income; you can see in my picture that error.

So because of those issues I just mentioned, Bitcoin Cash is still a better way to transact because I don't have to worry about the future price of transaction fees, nor do I have to keep using the blockchain to maintain my money. I could go offline if I wanted to, and my money will be there once I come back. I can't say about Lightning Network since you must stay online at least once a day to ensure the other party hasn't cheated or tried to steal your funds. And I don't have to forget to mention that once I send payment, I am 100% sure that the amount will reach its destination, and that is with zero confirmations, for more significant amounts of money, people could wait for at least two, and the transaction will be considered settled.

Bitcoin Cash still works better, in my opinion.

My article may seem like I am defending BTC, but to have a neutral position and post on my writing accurate information from time to time, I have to try what the competition is offering to offer my readers a balanced view. I am pretty much researching so that my readers can have a better understanding and make better decisions on their own or reinforce previous views and opinions.