pull down to refresh

121 sats \ 1 reply \ @justin_shocknet 13 Jan \ on: Submarine Swaps(on-chain to LN) not ready for prime time? lightning
Atomic swaps for LN have been around nearly as long an LN and pretty stable, the Boltz implementation of them has too and the service run by Boltz is suprisingly reliable... I imagine the changes you needed to make were a customization, because you were using a clone that wasn't configured properly, and as an early user of that particular clone to it you got to find the bug.
That said, it's never going to have the UX people have become used to in crypto more broadly, where stuff is completely trust-based and centralized.
Per your other thread:
The LN invoice was raised from Wallet of Satoshi
Since you're using a trusted wallet already, there was no point in trying to do a trust-less/atomic submarine swap... you would just generate a chain address in WoS to round out the custodial UX.
Submarine swaps are really for node operators doing advanced liquidity management and generally have better grasp the end-to-end machinery, while end-users will unavoidably continue using the trusted versions for better UX.
write
preview
17 sats \ 0 replies \ @charonnakamoto OP 13 Jan
you would just generate a chain address in WoS to round out the custodial UX.
I did consider that, but the fees for moving from on-chain to WoS LN were more than twice(or even thrice) the cost of doing it via Swaps. Plus, since re-entering the world of lightning with vigor, I have been keen to experiment with services. When I get obsessed with something, I go deep into the rabbit holes, and I feel I end up learning something from that. But I appreciate you reviewing the earlier post and agree it must be an issue with that particular implementation.
reply