third party custodian (i.e the wallet
> provider) receives the money on your behalf. The next time you want to send
> something, this channel takes top priority.
> This way the on-boarding process is pretty much solved, if you are OK with
> some trust.
>
> What do you think?
>
&
outing nodes are financially incentivized to do open a channel
with me because they could charge a premium. Thor's instant channel is an
example of this.
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 3:59 AM Rusty Russell wrote:
> Ecurrencyhodler Blockchains writes:
> >1. Bob wants to send me 100,000
hat disadvantages do you see over this proposal and say something like
autopilot? Or do you just prefer manual channel management overall?
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 6:27 PM ZmnSCPxj wrote:
> Good morning Ecurrencyhodler,
>
> A current and practical way to set up incoming liquidity woul
's basically the same
situation with Thor's instant channel. But we could completely remove
scenario 2 and only allow routing nodes to open channels to me as long as
Bob makes the payment.
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 12:03 AM ZmnSCPxj wrote:
> Good morning Ecurrencyhodler,
>
> > Hi Zmn
Good morning Rusty.
To add to roasbeef's point, I don't think lightningpowerusers.com is a good
indicator for market tolerance for higher fees either. It's highly
connected and does a lot of routing because Pierre has on boarded many
users through the node launcher. That means most of these users
Hi. I'd like to propose a way for instant inbound liquidity to be automated
via invoices and would appreciate your feedback. It's similar to Thor's
instant channel but this proposal would only be valuable if it becomes a
standard across all lightning implementations and wallets. It won't work
if
