Do you mean to say that you are fine and dandy with your purchasing power eroding over time?
All governments eventually start tinkering with the money supply. It's all well and good that you trust your government to do the right thing, sadly that's not the case for a large portion of the worlds population. Have you seen Turkey lately? Lebanon?
> The number of transactions is a measurement of efficiency.
The number of transactions would be the same, regardless of energy spent on mining. Be it 1 joule or a million.
> Only between 2 parties, after opening a channel between them, which requires: A transaction. And neither party can use any of the funds transmitted via the payment-channel in the wider network until the channel gets closed, which requires: Another transaction.
This isn't correct. The Lighning Network isn't just a channel between two parties. It's a network of channels between participants that allows you to transfer to any part of said network. You can open a channel to someone and never close it. Why would you? There are channels that are multiple years old at this point.
> The banking system imposes no such limitations: A transfer can be initiated at any time to any IBAN in the world, with no prior agreement, the energy cost is miniscule, and the moment the transfer is completed, the funds are available to the other party for transactions to whatever other IBAN they want.
This is really looking at the current banking system with rose-coloured spectacles wouldn't you say? What about the billions of people that do not have access to banking? You don't think there's any value in those people being able to use something like Bitcoin to interact with the wider international markets?