CTV enables coinpools, giant channel factories, Ark, and timeout trees. Each of these offer 10x-1000x scalability improvements (with different tradeoffs). The good news is we don't need to handle billions yet, but CTV gets us close (or maybe over!) the first Billion.
Discussion
Coinpools are like multisig between multiple people, right? What is the scalability you get from that?
Channel factories can't be done with CTV. It requires LNHANCE or APO, right?
Channel factories can be done with just CTV. LNHANCE includes CTV of course.
This is wrong. You cannot do it with just CTV.
The original channel factory paper definitely doesn't. It doesn't even require CTV. What are you talking about specifically?
Of course, it requires NOINPUT, or APO, not CTV.
What paper are you referring to? The original uses descending timelocks for updates unless I'm missing something.
Regardless, a simple coinpool like tr(
I see. I am talking about multiparty channels, which are often referred to as channel factories, but it's an ambiguous name.
Timeout Trees are just a way to open more Lightning channels, right? But that isn't the problem with Lightning. Force-closes are.
Have you seen nostr:npub169n9eaf0t20j0nefwqlqtnqcpsym22k2nw6e3tevtrrru4et7wrsh5w47v and nostr:npub1l8wk5a39qcnqkw9z60jmgepp8shy073cwapfl60wvrs8rgc6qltsq66m2c?
Timeout trees can be used for lightning channels but it's not really their only use.
Lightning's biggest problem actually IS channel opens right now, it would take ~5.5 years to open 1 billion lightning channels right now. Whereas you could (in theory, but there are practical limits much lower) open 1 billion lightning channels in one transaction with CTV.
*Then* the problem becomes uncooperative closes (force closes and attempted thefts). If you have a billion people competing for block space to handle closes, that could get messy too.
But if we can use CTV to increase channel open capacity, and we can limit the need for uncooperative closes, then overall capacity dramatically increases.
Sorry timeout trees *are* really just for lightning, but my core point about channel opens remains the same
Closes are already a problem today. It will only increase if you start to open more channels with TT.
Currently it's cheap to open a channel, yet it costs a lot to force-close, and it happens all the time. CTV does nothing to help with that, nor does any other opcode proposal.
They are *a* problem but they are not *the* problem if we can't open the channels to begin with. That's like saying the problem with a plane that can't fly is that it can't land.
Closures aren't remotely driving block congestion anyway.