{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1gqdch553m0nqcg47xullf030qfnlyrm9pmneyxkdgexv4mmkclrqhgnzxe","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1gqdch553m0nqcg47xullf030qfnlyrm9pmneyxkdgexv4mmkclrqhgnzxe","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2023-01-03\n🗒️ Summary of this message: A proposal suggests using a swap-in-potentiam address to draw upon liquidity when making LN payments without waiting for an on-chain transaction. This can work in reverse to increase inbound liquidity on-demand. The proposal offers advantages such as allowing the LN wallet to remain offline and being easier to implement.\n📝 Original message:\nHi David,\n\nConsider a scenario where Alice receives on-chain funds while her mobile\nwallet\napp is not running. The app can't perform a splice-in until it is opened.\nLet's\nsay she doesn't open the app until she is ready to buy her coffee with an LN\npayment, and there's not sufficient outbound liquidity in the channel to\nmake\nthe payment. At that point, it's inconvenient for Alice to have to wait for\nan\non-chain splice-in to confirm before she can buy her coffee.\n\nHowever, if she received on-chain funds with a swap-in-potentiam address,\nthe\napp can draw upon the liquidity when the LN payment needs to be made without\nhaving to wait for an on-chain transaction. Furthermore, Alice can defer her\ndecision about whether she wants to pay the fees to increase her outbound\nliquidity until she needs the liquidity.\n\nSimilarly, this process can work in reverse, such that she can increase her\ninbound liquidity in the channel, and pay for it, on-demand when the\nliquidity\nis needed and not before.\n\nAll the best,\n\nJesse\n\nOn Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 10:36 AM David A. Harding \u003cdave at dtrt.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On 2023-01-03 03:57, ZmnSCPxj via Lightning-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e The contract has two participants: Alice the funds owner, and\n\u003e \u003e Bob its potential swap partner.\n\u003e \u003e [...]\n\u003e \u003e The contract has only 2 branches:\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e * Onchain/channel branch: Alice and Bob.\n\u003e \u003e * Timelock branch: Alice plus a relative timelock (`OP_CSV`)\n\u003e \u003e   measurable in weeks.\n\u003e\n\u003e Good morning Jesse and ZmnSCPxj,\n\u003e\n\u003e Is the following an accurate summary of the proposal's benefits and\n\u003e costs? At some point x blocks before Alice expects she might want to\n\u003e spend her funds on LN (but also wants the option to quickly spend her\n\u003e funds onchain), she enters into a contract protocol with Bob.  At any\n\u003e time, with Bob's cooperation, she can send an onchain transaction.  Or,\n\u003e after the contract protocol deposit transaction gets x confirmations,\n\u003e Alice can instantly fund a fully initialized LN channel with Bob's\n\u003e cooperation, from which she can immediately send LN payments.\n\u003e\n\u003e If the above is accurate, how does that compare to splice outs?  For\n\u003e example: at some point x blocks before Alice expects she might want to\n\u003e spend her funds on LN (but also wants the option to quickly spend her\n\u003e funds onchain), she enters into a contract protocol with Bob by opening\n\u003e an LN channel.  At any time, with Bob's cooperation, she can send an\n\u003e onchain transaction using a splice out.  Or, after the contract protocol\n\u003e (LN) deposit transaction gets x confirmations, Alice now has a funded\n\u003e fully initialized LN channel with Bob's participation as counterparty,\n\u003e from which she can immediately send LN payments.\n\u003e\n\u003e If the value for x blocks is the same in both cases, those two scenarios\n\u003e look very similar to me.\n\u003e\n\u003e The only advantages I see of your proposal are:\n\u003e\n\u003e 1. It allows Alice's LN wallet to remain offline indefinitely---but only\n\u003e if Alice doesn't have any other funds in open channels.\n\u003e 2. It's easier to implement than splice-outs (I would guess)---but it\n\u003e also only provides the benefits of sending onchain payments at the time\n\u003e before the first LN transaction is made, whereas actual splice out can\n\u003e be used any time in a channel's lifetime to immediately send onchain\n\u003e payments.\n\u003e\n\u003e Am I missing something?\n\u003e\n\u003e -Dave\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20230103/8ef5ad59/attachment.html\u003e"}