People have been debating the blocksize for a very long time now and there doesn't seem to be any large desire to change it so while the ability to increase it exists changing anything that fundamental about bitcoin seems to be a non-starter and while that is true lightning is pointless as a solution for the masses.

Even if you increase the block size 100x though you're still not improving the numbers much since my very generous numbers ignore activity outside of lightning and assume a single on chain transaction for every user and a perfect network.

It is not the blocksize. The throughput of transaction on the lightning network is not at all limited by blocksize or the bitcoin blockchain.

The ability for users to access the lightning network is limited by blocksize since you need transactions to open channels.

> you need transactions to open channels

Maybe your understanding of lightning is wrong here. Yes you open channels, and transactions in lightning need open channels, but you do NOT NEED to open channels for specific transactions. You open channels once, and transact over them for years. I run a lightning node with more than 15 channels (each to different lightning nodes) that are all older than 1 year (I route payments, so I have way more channels than needed). You can batch-open channels, i.e. I could have opened all my 15 channels with a single on-chain transaction. Taproot update would make those "commitment transactions" onchain way smaller (in byte) than needed to in the past.

No misunderstanding at all.

Go read what I've said again. My timelines are based entirely on each user making a single transaction(opening a single channel).

Once channels are open, the users on the lightning network can transact back and forth without any new channel opens/closure and thus no on-chain settlement. Hence: Throughput in lightning is not at all limited on the bitcoin transaction throughput.

Throughput depends on users and users are limited by transaction limits is what I'm saying.