Quote from: LoyceV on April 26, 2021, 08:09:36 AM

Quote from: PrimeNumber7 on April 26, 2021, 07:58:55 AM

I think in the future, it would be more common for channels to be funded via both parties sending coin in the same transaction.

More inputs means higher total transaction fees.

In your situation, there are two transactions, 1) tx from you to ACINQ, and from ACINQ that opens the LN channel. This is at a minimum, two inputs and two outputs, plus additional bytes that are required for each transaction. Two parties sending coin to fund a LN channel in the same transaction would involve a single transaction, and a minimum of one output and two inputs. The net effect is that less block space would be used.

Quote from: LoyceV on April 26, 2021, 08:09:36 AM

I can imagine a future in which for LN users don't open their own channels at all: you just buy LN balance at an exchange, the exchange opens large channels, and you use their channels for buying coffee.
I know some people won't like that level of centralization, and I'm not a huge fan of it myself, but if that's what it takes to reach mass adoption, I can live with it. And if you really want, you can always pay the additional on-chain fees to connect your own node.

If you are buying a LN 'balance you are buying a database entry. If the exchange has many customers and merchants, there would be no reason to use LN, you could simply pay another exchange customer, and the database could be updated.