15 sats \ 2 replies \ @0330830bf9 31 Jul 2023
Splicing seems like bearish tech, it's top feature is making channels smaller. It can splice channels bigger, but for the average user they're better off just adding a second channel.
It may help LSP's reduce their overall costs in theory, which they could pass on the savings... maybe. Not sold on this... because even if so, it comes at the expense of having one channel that gets rolled over and you have to trust the LSP while the update confirms.
reply
357 sats \ 0 replies \ @theinstagibbs 31 Jul 2023
Channels continue to operate trustlessly during the splice confirmation. You just can't take advantage of the new capacity of a splice-in until it confirms(unless you're doing 0-conf with LSP).
reply
105 sats \ 0 replies \ @shibe 31 Jul 2023
I think splicing can reduce the amount of thought you have to give to your liquidity. But ultimately as Burak describes it, inbound liquidity feels like a bug of the Lightning Network, and splicing IMO is just a work-around that's more efficient than opening channels on the fly but not a perfect solution.
I do think splicing can improve the UX significantly however and it could happen without you knowing. I wouldn't be surprised if LSPs offer incentives for agreeing to resize your channel as well, like maybe offering low (or even negative) fees if you shrink your channel if they want to reallocate the liquidity elsewhere.
Ideally we'd have some sort of "perfect" L2 where managing liquidity something you ever think about but I don't know what that would be. Maybe Lightning with eltoo channel factories or Hierarchical channels, or Ark.
reply