1 sat \ 7 replies \ @0330830bf9 9 Sep 2023
Encouraging users to rollover channels instead of adding redundant ones is generally bad for privacy, speed and reliability.
Will Blockstream stop at nothing to undermine Lightning just because they lost the implementation battle?
reply
1 sat \ 3 replies \ @TonyGiorgio 9 Sep 2023
Wrong, wrong, and wrong, yet again. There's many terrific privacy improvements that can happen with splicing that would have not been possible before. There's no downtime with splices, and your "reliability" statement is unfounded considering it just launched for both CLN and Phoenix in beta to test it out.
And great bLoCksTreAm conspiracy yet again. It's so funny how you're leaning into the worst takes of lightning every single time.
reply
1 sat \ 2 replies \ @0330830bf9 9 Sep 2023
There's downtime if your 1 channel peer goes down. It's also less private to have 1 peer instead of 2.
This is just more centralization tech being pushed by Blockstream, resisting AMP, as they rub it in your face by not repenting on the "Core" branding.
Shouldn't you be busy simping for LDK's cloud storage? Or have you accepted the facts I pointed out about mobile nodes?
reply
1 sat \ 1 reply \ @TonyGiorgio 9 Sep 2023
It's about redundant channels with the same peer, keeping the channel open while still making on chain payments, and you can even manage multiple channels across different peers in a single transaction now. So if anything it encourages multiple peers more than it did before.
Do some research dog.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @0330830bf9 9 Sep 2023
I'm the researching skeptic. You're a "current thing" maxi, blindly taking the salaried dev class at face value.... even as Lightning continues to be attacked from all directions.
You seem to know very little about any of this.
Swaps are superior for user centered cases, and Dusty has even admitted that the primary use of this is for LSP's (centralizing) to shrink capacity without down time.
Just admit that it's bearish tech and you've been fooled again.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Crostr 10 Sep 2023
So I take it your argument assumes the person only has one channel instead of multiple? If a person has multiple channels and wants to make one of them bigger, what's the problem?
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @0330830bf9 10 Sep 2023
Add a 3rd.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Crostr 11 Sep 2023
That's not an argument against it
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ealvar26 9 Sep 2023
Hoping to try this out with CLN next month. Hopefully will make liquidity management easier 🙏
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kevkevin 9 Sep 2023
Like fixing a plane mid flight
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nitter 9 Sep 2023
Twitter2Nitter
Clearnet: nitter.net | nitter.it | nitter.cz | nitter.at | nitter.unixfox.eu | nitter.poast.org | nitter.privacydev.net | nitter.d420.de | nitter.sethforprivacy.com | nitter.nicfab.eu | bird.habedieeh.re | nitter.salastil.com | nt.ggtyler.dev
Tor: nitter7bryz3..q553qd.onion | 26oq3gioiwcm..b4wwid.onion | vfaomgh4jxph..dauqad.onion | nitraeju2mip..evvuqd.onion | codeine3hsqn..brdqqd.onion
I2P: axd6uavsstsr..zf4q.b32.i2p | u6ikd6zndl3c..n2qa.b32.i2p | gseczlzmiv23..aoua.b32.i2p | tm4rwkeysv3z..4weq.b32.i2p | vernzdedoxuf..agva.b32.i2p
Lokinet: nitter.priv.loki/
Nitter is a free and open source alternative Twitter front-end focused on privacy and performance. Click here for more information.
reply