This seventh minor release introduces numerous new features, bug fixes, and API improvements. In particular, it adds support for channel Splicing, Async Payments, as well as sourcing chain data from a Bitcoin Core REST backend.
pull down to refresh
related posts
44 sats \ 10 replies \ @SevenOfNine 2h
Splicing!
reply
0 sats \ 9 replies \ @0xbitcoiner OP 2h
Is that related to a swap? What’s the big differences between them? cc/ @DarthCoin
reply
121 sats \ 1 reply \ @SevenOfNine 2h
They both adjust liquidity, but serve different functions. A splice directly modifies the channel and its size. So I can splice more sats into my channel and it will in turn increase that channel's total capacity. Splicing out will also decrease the channels overall capacity. Swaps leave the channel state alone. With swaps you're simply moving liquidity through swap providers to swap in and out while paying them a modest fee. With splices it's a cooperative agreement with your channel partner to increase or decrease the capacity of the channel by effectively resetting/updating the funding transaction. Downside is you need both channel participants to run a lightning implementation that supports splicing. This can also help clear a looong list of old commitment transactions for a given channel.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @02ad8239c2 41m
Is that what gets described as stale state ? the previous agreements of the channel balance ?
So splicing would be like restarting the balance agreement for that channel (with whatever balance had been reached before the splice was enacted)
reply
21 sats \ 6 replies \ @DarthCoin 2h
swap is just a refill/empty for a LN channel, without a resize of the channel.
splicing is expanding or shrinking the size of a channel.
Are not the same and should be used in different occasions.
Splicing have the same costs of opening/closing a LN channel, where swaps have different fees charged by the swap provider.
Splicing is a good thing and I hope we will have it also on LND soon.
Sometimes, if your channel it gets filled quickly and you foresee in near future more incoming payments, then is good to expand the same channel, and not being forced to close it and open a bigger one.
reply
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @0xbitcoiner OP 2h
Hold on, does that mean we can do a swap through Splicing if the costs are better at that moment? I must be missing something.
reply
21 sats \ 4 replies \ @DarthCoin 2h
No swaps are swaps and splicing is splicing.
Swaps are about liquidity, have to do only when you want to move sats out of a channel, or refill an empty channel, without any resize of the channel.
Splicing is about sizing, making bigger or smaller a channel size, without any moving of sats in/out of that channel.
Think about this:
- swaps: a glass of water that you drink it and refill it. The glass remain the same only the content is changing.
- splicing: a small glass of water, that you change it for a bigger one with the same amount of water in it. Shrinking of a channel doesn't make too much sense, you always want a bigger glass... but yes is possible to shrink a channel too.
ARE 2 DIFFERENT THINGS.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @0xbitcoiner OP 2h
Got it. What happens if you wanna shrink the cup below the water that’s already in it? Do you have to empty the water first?
reply
21 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin 2h
you can't do that. The shrinking will fail.
The level of water must lower than the new size of the glass.
But what you can do is a swap out into onchain first of the sats from that channel you want to shrink or rebalance with another channel you have, then do the shrinking.
But again, shrinking is quite dumb.
reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @0xbitcoiner OP 2h
Figured. But do you have to empty the cup completely, or is it enough for the water level to just be below the size we want?
edit: You edited your reply and you already answered my question.
view all 1 replies