Jonald Fyookball

That's my point. BCH did not include some technical innovations like you stated. It simply increased hardcoded block size limit. Simple as that. Even Satoshi himself mentions this in his whitepaper. Other stuff has also changed. The difficulty adjustment (DAA) algorithm has changed to allow are more stable difficulty for miners.
Segwit just changed what parts of a transaction counted as size in a block. In reality we're talking about 200KB or thereabouts extra space in blocks.
Lightning network is based on a mesh-network. Furthermore it completely changes the bitcoins fundamental clockwork. Suddenly you can't receive payments if you don't hold any coins yourself. Even more detrimental; you can't receive payments if you are not online on the lightning network. It has several other flaws that are very hard to fix; https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800.

I suggest you see this presentation on 1GB blocks (tested on test-net) by Peter Rizun; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SJm2ep3X_M
And his talk at "Satoshi's Vision" (here he talks about what is called "weak blocks" and how it can improve scaling and wasted PoW; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXFuNkaYcPQ

It's totally feasible and does not require super computers albeit a Raspberry Pi won't do no more. Scaling to VISA level of transactions is possible. I don't think it's really going to change too much in computing power…

Nope, I haven't. The anti-efficiency element applies to core Bitcoin no matter what you run on top of it. If you keep to the maximum 7tx/sec that's what you'll encounter. I can't imagine a world where no matter what you're running L2 that the system won't hit that incredibly low limit.

Second layer technologies, in the form of exchanges, aren't blockchain at all. They're just varying degrees of fly-by-night bookkeeping and/or settlement. They require blockchain tokens as much as they require the dollar - not at all.

There's no viable L2 technology right now that anyone is using (especially LN) yet, so it's too early to speculate. If I recall correctly it takes a traditional transaction to open a channel, and we're still capped at 7 per second. If there's 7.5 billion people on earth and we want to establish a channel for each of them, well, buckle up, we'll be here melting the Earth for 1.071 BILLION seconds, or 34 years. Just to open channels. Then another 34 years to close them. Here's a mathematical proof of the LN issues [1].

Hand-waving and pretending there's a path or some solution today means we're not even talking about objective reality anymore.

[1] https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800

LN has been vaporware for a long time, and it's always 18 months before it's ready. Recently the developers openly admitted they don't know how to scale it beyond 10000+ channels, because they don't know how to solve distributed routing.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/719vis/lightning_dev_there_are_protocol_scaling_issues/

https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800

Imagine that you are a business that operates in Bitcoin and pays employees in Bitcoin. How does Lightning solve that? It doesn't. Lightning falls apart if the graph has heavily asymmetric connections, and the only solution is to have banks, which is what these crypto enthusiasts want to get rid of in the first place.

https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800