Lightning swaps *are* the connective tissue - btc++ Insider \ stacker news ~lightning

pull down to refresh

Lightning swaps *are* the connective tissue - btc++ Insider insider.btcpp.dev/p/lightning-swaps-are-the-connective

2559 sats \ 18 comments \ @Scoresby 14 Aug lightning

zaps forwarded to @tuma (100%)

I like the idea of lightning as the language all the other bitcoin things speak to each other.

In Riga, the Fedimint user initiated the payment request to their counterparty by swapping locally minted Ecash with the Fedimint Gateway. On the Arkade side, the user received a VTXO that was swapped to them via Boltz who generated the invoice, and received the payment, on the Lightning side. This payment was executed just like our example outlined above.

The swap service does seem to be the single point of failure here. I know there are many different swap services, but it seems like a lot of these different layers are relying on Bolts. Given the current legal climate, I wonder how long that will last.

None the less, this does feel a little bit like the dream of exchanges having private lightning channels with each other and settling back and forth while rarely hitting the chain.

view all related items

173 sats \ 4 replies \ @OT 15 Aug

Isn't Boltz open sourced? I remember there was a Japanese company also running a swap service using their back end infrastructure.

There could be some opportunity for plebs offer sats for the swap market. Boltz and Electrum already have it.

402 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin 15 Aug

Any public node runner could join as a new swap provider to Swapmarket https://github.com/SwapMarket/swapmarket.github.io/tree/main?tab=readme-ov-file#onboarding

102 sats \ 0 replies \ @SwapMarket 15 Aug

Arigato, sensei 🙏

102 sats \ 0 replies \ @ACYK 15 Aug

First time seeing this. Thanks for sharing.

50 sats \ 0 replies \ @SwapMarket 15 Aug

Diamond Hands have sunset their swaps. But we are still kicking!

213 sats \ 11 replies \ @optimism 15 Aug

I don't really like that lightning is nowadays advertised to be a settlement layer, as it feels like a goal-post shift. From where I'm sitting, all txs through an LN channel are unsettled until the channel is closed? What am I missing?

342 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b 15 Aug

They're are technically unsettled but they are game-theoretically settled given the penalty (assuming it's economically and otherwise possible for parties to get transactions confirmed).

Are all but the oldest bitcoin transactions settled if reorgs are theoretically possible? Meaning, even what we consider "settled," an onchain transaction with N confirmations, can be unsettled. Settled is a matter of degree, and a matter of feasibility, cost, and consequences to the party trying to unsettle transactions, right?

It's kind of like the difference between a gold bar in my hand and a gold bar in a bank vault. You can steal either, perhaps one easier than the other, one with greater consequences than the other, so is the gold bar that's harder to steal with greater consequences the only gold bar that's mine? Or are both mine if it's improbable that someone would steal either gold bar?

Perhaps there's a distinction between what we mean by settled and confirmed. Both mean improbable to reverse, but confirmed is the kind of settled that only depends on the network continuing to behave honestly and self-interested long enough. But there are other kinds of settled.

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 15 Aug

On L1, you have a network-wide game theory implementation where with each confirmation, new transactions are economically important to not get reorg'ed away, and every txo in a block helps every other historical txo to stay confirmed. There's network incentive.

On LN, ignoring flaws, all game theory is afaict between 2 parties, and heads-up changes things, because there is no longer the safety of the group. How is there any network incentive on LN grounded in game theory like on L1? Asking because you know better than I.

PS: apologies for the late reply - jetlag is being nasty to me atm.

102 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 15 Aug

While I'm rambling: this is the coolest thing about lightning and I'm surprised no one has done something as creative with game-theoretic settlement (settlement without confirmation). I haven't tried, and I'm probably wrong, but I'd bet you could make a decent side chain that solves the mass exit problem by designing incentives for the mass exit-ers to fork the side chain together (and avoid going onchain).

102 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 15 Aug

try 0-conf channels. Are really fun and interesting. Definitely an underrated thing by many people as I pointed in this old post: #909079

100 sats \ 2 replies \ @ZezzebbulTheMysterious 15 Aug

If you are routing, it’s more desirable to have the extra sats in the channel vs onchain. True settlement is always onchain, but if you want to put those sats to work, you’re going to have to pay a miner to open another channel.

So in a sense that if that wallet/nodes purpose is routing, “settlement” in lightning sats —- increased channel balance is more desirable.

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @optimism 15 Aug

Okay, I think I get what you're saying, but to me that means that there is a benefit to not settling, which I agree with. But that doesn't make LN a settlement layer, it makes it a I'm-not-settling-yet layer.

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @ZezzebbulTheMysterious 15 Aug

There also is the ecash component, true, final settlement is onchain. But moving from ecash to channel balance is a l3->l2 settlement too! Settlement is any layer transition, not just onchain.

100 sats \ 3 replies \ @Scoresby OP 15 Aug

Well, in the examples here neither the payer nor the payee has a lightning channel. For instance, Fedi to Ark via Lightning. In this case who is actually "settling" on LN? Maybe the fedimint and the the swap provider?

As far as the mint user and the ark user, their trust models haven't changed no matter what is the state of the lightning channel that was used to link them.

So the mint has an open channel with someone and boltz has a channel with someone else (or maybe even they have a channel with each other). They are responsible for managing that channel just like any other lightning channel.

The people who want settlement have the same level of settlement (or trust) as they had when they started, and which, presumably they accept.

102 sats \ 2 replies \ @optimism 15 Aug

Well, in the examples here neither the payer nor the payee has a lightning channel. [..] As far as the mint user and the ark user, their trust models haven't changed

Haven't they? Afaik if it's not your lightning channel (or you are a co-signer on it) then it's not your coin, even if just for a second; i.e. custodial?

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby OP 15 Aug

I would agree. I'm saying they were holding ecash tokens or ark vutxos to start and at the end they are holding ecash tokens or vutxos, not bitcoin.

So it doesn't seem like they are actually using lightning as a settlement layer. They are using it as a transport layer?

112 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 15 Aug

holding ecash tokens or ark vutxos to start and at the end they are holding ecash tokens or vutxos, not bitcoin.

I think that as long as we recognize the "not bitcoin" part, this is fine, and that's my primary point: if it's not on L1, it's not bitcoin. The nasty thing I will add, and I truly believe this: also not on LN (sorry). This means that settlement can only be on L1 (if you're a purist) and everything other than L1 is at best bitcoin * (1-<risk factor>).

They are using it as a transport layer?

Yes. Between unsettled bitcoin-derivatives.

102 sats \ 0 replies \ @tuma fwd 15 Aug

I agree with the swap provider being a possible single point of failure. More so, since Boltz is enforcing OFAC blacklisting.