Hi Rusty,
Happy to get the splicing train rolling!
> We've had increasing numbers of c-lightning users get upset they can't
> open multiple channels, so I guess we're most motivated to allow splicing
of
> existing channels
Splicing isn't a substitute for allowing multiple channels. Multiple
chan
> I would suggest more to consider the simpler method, despite its larger
> onchain footprint (which is galling),
The on-chain footprint is a shame, and also it gets worse if we start to
allow multiple pending splices. Also the lack of a non-blocking splice in is
a big draw back IMO.
> but mostly
Olaoluwa Osuntokun writes:
> Splicing isn't a substitute for allowing multiple channels. Multiple
> channels allow nodes to:
>
> * create distinct channels with distinct acceptance policies.
> * create a mix of public and non-advertised channels with a node.
> * be able to send more than the
