Dr. Hax's avatar
Dr. Hax Dr.Hax@hax0rbana.org 2 weeks ago
And in retrospect, it makes some sense. In order to get money from ln to on-chain, either a channel would have to get closed, or there would need to be an on-chain wallet sitting around with funds in it (as opposed to dumping all the funds into channels). It just seems like there should be a way to solve this problem that solves this, or at least hides the complexity.
↑ Parent

Replies (3)

Dr. Hax's avatar
Dr. Hax Dr.Hax@hax0rbana.org 2 weeks ago
Maybe? I don't know what splicing is, but if it cooperatively moves part of the channel funds to a new address and reduces the channel size accordingly, that'd make sense. It looks like, from a technical perspective, it is possible in a trustless way:
Knowing Bitcoin
Lightning Payments in Practice: Sending, Receiving and Troubleshooting - Knowing Bitcoin
Lightning Payments in Practice: Sending, Receiving and Troubleshooting: lesson from the Lightning Network & Bitcoin Nodes course on Knowing Bit...
 It turns out boltz wasn't just an altcoin swapping thing, but it also allowed trading BTC in lightning for BTC on-chain. But as someone else in this thread mentioned, they're gone. There's reportedly software called Loop, which Loop Bitcoin service is a self-hosted thing that will solve this problem (I didn't look into the technical details, but presumably it works the same as bolz, with the hash lock).
2 replies ↓
↑