pull down to refresh
related posts
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nym 25 Apr 2024
How fast is this still progressing?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @OriginalSize 9 Aug 2023
Bitcoin's killer app is savings but it's always great to see this kind of progress that enables more users to cost-effectively use Bitcoin for more.
reply
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @Jarfi OP 9 Aug 2023
I'm curious about splicing as I was under the impression it required an onchain transaction to function.
reply
10 sats \ 5 replies \ @netstatic 9 Aug 2023
It does, what led you to believe differently? Keeping the channel open while resizing capacity is the big innovation here
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @Jarfi OP 9 Aug 2023
it doesn't seem very cost effective if we need to pay onchain fees, no?
reply
102 sats \ 3 replies \ @netstatic 9 Aug 2023
It's effective compared to the existing alternative of having both a closing transaction and another channel open. It's also more convenient than creating a new channel with your channel partner since more channels add complexity. It also offers a better UX since, from what I understand, payments can still be made while waiting for the resize to occur on chain
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Jarfi OP 9 Aug 2023
all good points, but rebalancing would still be cheapest if you're just looking to inject more liquidity to an existing channel
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @netstatic 9 Aug 2023
Rebalancing is pretty costly in my experience and also covers a different use-case than wanting to resize a channel. Resizing a channel allows me to maintain the balance I have with my channel partner while potentially adding new funds to send them. I could have a .5 btc channel and want to make 1 btc payments. Adding 1 btc to my channel is the only way to make that possible while still having capacity for regular payments as well. I personally think it's a huge improvement to what we had before
view all 1 replies