From laolu32 at gmail.com Wed Jul 4 21:28:13 2018 From: laolu32 at gmail.com (Olaoluwa Osuntokun) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 16:28:13 -0500 Subject: [Lightning-dev] Including a Protocol for splicing to BOLT In-Reply-To: <878t6r3638.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> References: <87efgmh5ob.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87y3esigat.fsf@gmail.com> <878t6r3638.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> Message-ID: What's the nasty compromise? Let's also not underestimate how big of an update switching to dlog based HTLCs will be. On Wed, Jul 4, 2018, 4:21 PM Rusty Russell wrote: > 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. > _______________________________________________ > Lightning-dev mailing list > Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: