pull down to refresh
32 sats \ 3 replies \ @ek 21 Sep \ on: Stacker Saloon
@DarthCoin, does splicing make the need to create big channels obsolete? With splicing, one can start with a small channel and later expand when needed, no? Especially in the context of private channels not meant for routing.
Yes and no.
Yes is easier to start with a small channel if the user do not have enough funds. Then later adding more funds, will splice "up" one by one.
No, it will cost you more, because splicing also involve fees.
So in the end you will pay more.
But that doesn't mean splicing is not good. It is good, because you will "grow" a single channel instead of having multiple small channels.
Keep in mind that once you start spending from that channel, is not splicing "down", reducing the size. Is only reducing the outbound liquidity.