Re: [Lightning-dev] Proposal: Automated Inbound Liquidity With Invoices

2019-08-14 Thread ZmnSCPxj via Lightning-dev
Good morning Ecurrencyhodler, > Hi ZmnSCPxj!  > > Submarine swaps are a great current solution, but we still have to wait for > confirmations. So would `push_msat`; until confirmed deeply the channel opening can still be cancelled by double-spending and it would be foolhardy to deliver the

Re: [Lightning-dev] Proposal: Automated Inbound Liquidity With Invoices

2019-08-14 Thread ZmnSCPxj via Lightning-dev
Good morning Ecurrencyhodler, It seems to me a trusted model then. Regardless of who makes the channel (the payee cannot determine who the payer is anyway) the payee cannot trustlessly release the product until the channel is deeply confirmed, else your security is only 0-conf, not off-chain.

Re: [Lightning-dev] Paper - Modeling a Steady-State Lightning Network Economy

2019-08-14 Thread Gregorio Guidi
On August 13, 2019 6:23:31 AM GMT+02:00, ZmnSCPxj wrote: >Good morning Gregorio, > > >> We argue that in such scenario, in a network of n connected nodes, >there is a tendency towards a state where exactly n-1 channels have >perfectly balanced flows in the two directions ("self-balancing"

Re: [Lightning-dev] Proposal: Automated Inbound Liquidity With Invoices

2019-08-14 Thread ecurrencyhodler
>So would `push_msat`; until confirmed deeply the channel opening can still be cancelled by double-spending and it would be foolhardy to deliver the product until the channel is deeply confirmed to be opened. Okay so there's 2 situations here I'd like to explore: 1. Bob -> routing node -> Me 2.