From rusty at rustcorp.com.au Wed Jul 4 05:47:23 2018 From: rusty at rustcorp.com.au (Rusty Russell) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2018 15:17:23 +0930 Subject: [Lightning-dev] Including a Protocol for splicing to BOLT In-Reply-To: <87y3esigat.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87efgmh5ob.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87y3esigat.fsf@gmail.com> Message-ID: <878t6r3638.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> Christian Decker writes: > ZmnSCPxj via Lightning-dev writes: >> For myself, I think splice is less priority than AMP. But I prefer an >> AMP which retains proper ZKCP (i.e. receipt of preimage at payer >> implies receipt of payment at payee, to facilitate trustless >> on-to-offchain and off-to-onchain bridges). > > Agreed, multipath routing is a priority, but I think splicing is just as > much a key piece to a better UX, since it allows to ignore differences > between on-chain and off-chain funds, showing just a single balance for > all use-cases. Agreed, we need both. Multi-channel was a hack because splicing doesn't exist, and I'd rather not ever have to implement multi-channel :) AMP is important, but it's a nasty compromise with the current limitations. I want to have my cake and eat it too, and I'm pretty sure it's possible once the Scnorr-Eltoonicorn arrives. Cheers, Rusty.