Entirely possible that I'm mis{sing,interpret}ing things here but: it's a shame that the dual funding in c-lightning is still behind a non-default experimental-dual-fund flag and that when i search for the "option-will-fund" in the listnodes output I only get like 5-10 out of 90K. To be clear, by following fairly simple instructions in an old blog post, I was able to make a well-funded and perfectly balanced channel, within a couple of minutes.
For those interested in coinjoin, note that this *is* coinjoin and arguably one of the best types, since by nature of the offchain payments, this kind of CJ can actually hide flows better. If we want to get the real power of such a thing we'd ideally start batching *multiple* such channel opens together, but that's putting the cart before the horse here. Dual funded channels are such an obvious good, why is it not a more widely used system, or am I missing something? #lightning
(Btw said blog post by @niftynei : https://medium.com/blockstream/setting-up-liquidity-ads-in-c-lightning-54e4c59c091d Dual funded with equal amounts? Or you mean sending LN payments as a CJ?
Dual funded means eg. I contribute 100k sats and my channel counterparty does as well, so that when the channel is opened, it has 200k sat capacity but is balanced, with 100k inbound and outbound.
This will likely required liquidity ads too, because your counter party won't want to provide free inbound liquidity to anyone who asks, right?
Or are you thinking to only peer with nodes that are motivated by privacy and balanced channels?
Oh yes, i certainly assume liquidity ads; it makes no sense not to include market coordination, especially considering fees are offchain :)
1. Non-spec-final features are always behind a flag.
2. Spec final requires two independent implementations which interoperate.
3. Then nostr:nprofile1qqsvh300dvquh50l5t9et2257pxrsk5ndsdgdcdmnnxl9nc0f6l2ejcpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduq3samnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwwdhx7un59eek7cmfv9kqzrrhwden5te0vfexytnfdu7y9l4j needs to put in PR to make it on by default.
4. Then we need a release!
2 independent - that's what what i was missing/forgetting. Thanks!
Eclair and CL implementations seem to have converged on a splice spec that includes the tx negotiation used for dual funding. This is in heavy development so hopefully not much longer!
Does anyone have an update from the recent LN Dev meeting?
can concur that dual-funding is a feature that works great, i made a lot of use of it when i had to rebuild my lightning node, it's a shame that it's so undersold
from what i remember back in the day blockstream was heavily trying to get people to use PeerSwap instead (because dual-funding only solves the initial funding problem)
but they always have so many balls in the air
and LSP based approaches get so much more marketing behind them
Didn't know you were on Nostr! 🔥
UNFORTUNATELY HARD TO GET ANYTHING USED AT SCALE WITHOUT LIGHTNING LABS SUPPORT.
True. But any 2 impls is fine here, I guess - because when you search for liquidity ads, even if only 15% of peers or whatever, are offering, you would still be motivated to do it to have balanced channels by default. The clearing price for liquidity would go down from current centralized providers (which are another CPOF for the state to attack), is my bet.
FWIW, there is a UI for Liquidity Ads in RTL (Ride the Lightning) where ppl can easily browse LiqAd offers and take them with two clicks.
(But yes, you need have the --experimental flag enabled first)
👀
nostr:nevent1qqsxmfsl8emn2g7c4rhd4rmee8ngp2ptvpdla46wwpp5l4n2kjzsudcpz9mhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejj7q3qvadcfln4ugt2h9ruwsuwu5vu5am4xaka7pw6m7axy79aqyhp6u5qxpqqqqqqzw3vqn9
t-y all here that contributed!
Oddbean new post about login | logout