This seems inefficient to me. Can someone correct me if I am wrong?
I would like to get channels set up on my new Start9. It seems like it requires at least 2 on-chain transactions to do so. One to get sats onto the node and a second one to fund the channel.
Shouldn't there be a way to get the channel prepped and then do a single transaction to fund it from wherever I currently have it, rather than needing to send it to the node first?
#asknostr
Wait this is a really good call and i hope i get to see the answer bc yes from an experience perspective that would be very nice
I know you can swap or loop out from lightning to custom addresses that may or kay not have anything ti do with your node or even you, so it should be that way for setting up channels too
Basically create a flag of some kind, or i guess an invoice but on-chain, for a channel opening for your node that could come from anywhere 🤌
Right? I mean... I already have to generate an address to send the sats to my node. Why can't that address just be the address for the new channel?
You’re asking the wrong guy but YES
#YESTR 
What if it can but we’re both just tards 😂
#asknostr again 
This would not surprise me in the slightest. 🤣
I’m looking into this and will let you know what i find
My smart friends are mostly asleep so here is (the relevant prt of) what chatgpt says:
>
Your suggestion is about combining these steps into a single on-chain transaction. Ideally, this would involve creating an "invoice" or a contract that, when funded, automatically initializes a Lightning channel with the specified node. This would reduce the number of on-chain transactions (and thus fees) required to fund a Lightning channel.
There are a few reasons why this isn't currently standard practice:
1. **Technical Complexity**: Implementing a system where a single on-chain transaction can directly open a Lightning channel requires significant changes to how Lightning nodes operate and interact with the Bitcoin blockchain.
2. **Security Concerns**: Automatically opening channels based on received funds could introduce new security vulnerabilities, requiring careful design to prevent exploits.
3. **Protocol Limitations**: The current Bitcoin and Lightning Network protocols may not support such a feature directly, and introducing it could require substantial protocol upgrades or changes.
4. **Node Operation and Control**: Allowing automatic channel creation might reduce the control node operators have over their channel management, which can be crucial for effective routing and liquidity management.
5. **Network Standards and Compatibility**: For such a feature to be effective, it would need to be widely adopted and standardized across the Lightning Network, requiring coordination and agreement among developers and node operators.
The high fees due to activities like ordinal inscriptions are indeed a concern for Bitcoin users. Unfortunately, until the network evolves to allow more efficient use of block space or until the hype around activities that consume a lot of block space subsides, users may have to contend with these high fees. The suggestion you've made is interesting and could be a valuable area for future development in the Lightning Network ecosystem.
<
I haven’t read it all yet, i got illiterately excited to share it with you
I have something to report on this as well!
Turns out that a command-line lightning management app called Balance of Satoshis has this functionality, BUT you need to be using a wallet on the sending side that allows you to create a signed transaction without broadcasting it, because your node needs to broadcast the transaction via Balance of Satoshis for the channel-open to work.
Ohhh cool. I got a couple very brief answers from smart people here, it ain’t much nostr:note1pawn23hva0sd430ccyasrf3j8fq0cn03hhxrgamnmv3lhn7utrxs79aftt
You could open a channel to your node from a liquidity partner like LNBIG (or someone with cheaper lightning fees), then send yourself sats from a lightning wallet like strike or cashapp. That way you dont need to send onchain funds directly to your lightning node with one transaction, then open a channel with them from your node to another lightning node with a second transaction..
Yeah, that's not awful and could work, then I'll just send the on-chain funds I have to cold storage. 😀
