The post The Channel Factories We’ve Been Waiting For appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Visions of future technology are often prescient about the broad strokes while flubbing the details. The tablets in “2001: A Space Odyssey” do indeed look like iPads, but you never see the astronauts paying for subscriptions or wasting hours on Candy Crush.  Channel factories are one vision that arose early in the history of the Lightning Network to address some challenges that Lightning has faced from the beginning. Despite having grown to become Bitcoin’s most successful layer-2 scaling solution, with instant and low-fee payments, Lightning’s scale is limited by its reliance on payment channels. Although Lightning shifts most transactions off-chain, each payment channel still requires an on-chain transaction to open and (usually) another to close. As adoption grows, pressure on the blockchain grows with it. The need for a more scalable approach to managing channels is clear. Channel factories were supposed to meet this need, but where are they? In 2025, subnetworks are emerging that revive the impetus of channel factories with some new details that vastly increase their potential. They are natively interoperable with Lightning and achieve greater scale by allowing a group of participants to open a shared multisig UTXO and create multiple bilateral channels, which reduces the number of on-chain transactions and improves capital efficiency. Achieving greater scale by reducing complexity, Ark and Spark perform the same function as traditional channel factories with new designs and additional capabilities based on shared UTXOs.  Channel Factories 101 Channel factories have been around since the inception of Lightning. A factory is a multiparty contract where multiple users (not just two, as in a Dryja-Poon channel) cooperatively lock funds in a single multisig UTXO. They can open, close and update channels off-chain without updating the blockchain for each operation. Only when participants leave or the factory dissolves is an on-chain transaction… The post The Channel Factories We’ve Been Waiting For appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Visions of future technology are often prescient about the broad strokes while flubbing the details. The tablets in “2001: A Space Odyssey” do indeed look like iPads, but you never see the astronauts paying for subscriptions or wasting hours on Candy Crush.  Channel factories are one vision that arose early in the history of the Lightning Network to address some challenges that Lightning has faced from the beginning. Despite having grown to become Bitcoin’s most successful layer-2 scaling solution, with instant and low-fee payments, Lightning’s scale is limited by its reliance on payment channels. Although Lightning shifts most transactions off-chain, each payment channel still requires an on-chain transaction to open and (usually) another to close. As adoption grows, pressure on the blockchain grows with it. The need for a more scalable approach to managing channels is clear. Channel factories were supposed to meet this need, but where are they? In 2025, subnetworks are emerging that revive the impetus of channel factories with some new details that vastly increase their potential. They are natively interoperable with Lightning and achieve greater scale by allowing a group of participants to open a shared multisig UTXO and create multiple bilateral channels, which reduces the number of on-chain transactions and improves capital efficiency. Achieving greater scale by reducing complexity, Ark and Spark perform the same function as traditional channel factories with new designs and additional capabilities based on shared UTXOs.  Channel Factories 101 Channel factories have been around since the inception of Lightning. A factory is a multiparty contract where multiple users (not just two, as in a Dryja-Poon channel) cooperatively lock funds in a single multisig UTXO. They can open, close and update channels off-chain without updating the blockchain for each operation. Only when participants leave or the factory dissolves is an on-chain transaction…

The Channel Factories We’ve Been Waiting For

2025/09/18 00:09

Visions of future technology are often prescient about the broad strokes while flubbing the details. The tablets in “2001: A Space Odyssey” do indeed look like iPads, but you never see the astronauts paying for subscriptions or wasting hours on Candy Crush. 

Channel factories are one vision that arose early in the history of the Lightning Network to address some challenges that Lightning has faced from the beginning. Despite having grown to become Bitcoin’s most successful layer-2 scaling solution, with instant and low-fee payments, Lightning’s scale is limited by its reliance on payment channels. Although Lightning shifts most transactions off-chain, each payment channel still requires an on-chain transaction to open and (usually) another to close. As adoption grows, pressure on the blockchain grows with it. The need for a more scalable approach to managing channels is clear. Channel factories were supposed to meet this need, but where are they?

In 2025, subnetworks are emerging that revive the impetus of channel factories with some new details that vastly increase their potential. They are natively interoperable with Lightning and achieve greater scale by allowing a group of participants to open a shared multisig UTXO and create multiple bilateral channels, which reduces the number of on-chain transactions and improves capital efficiency. Achieving greater scale by reducing complexity, Ark and Spark perform the same function as traditional channel factories with new designs and additional capabilities based on shared UTXOs. 

Channel Factories 101

Channel factories have been around since the inception of Lightning. A factory is a multiparty contract where multiple users (not just two, as in a Dryja-Poon channel) cooperatively lock funds in a single multisig UTXO. They can open, close and update channels off-chain without updating the blockchain for each operation. Only when participants leave or the factory dissolves is an on-chain transaction needed.

Channel factories offer a number of important advantages. By enabling multiple off-chain channels to be spun up from a single on-chain transaction, they dramatically reduce the load on the base chain. Participants can rebalance funds among themselves efficiently without needing to touch the chain at all: New channels can be created on demand inside the factory, with no cost beyond what was already paid at the factory’s creation. The ability to tweak the ratio of channels to on-chain transactions makes channel factories one of the most capital-efficient scaling approaches available for Lightning today.

Still, it’s no coincidence that channel factories have largely remained on the drawing board despite their promise. A channel factory generally requires all participants to be online and cooperative to update its state, unless special arrangements or protocols are in place to handle asynchrony. For example, Lightning service providers (LSPs) can’t use channel factories to manage downstream channels with their users because all peers need to be known at the time the factory is created. Without a way to incrementally add peers to an existing factory, the model becomes impractical for nodes whose scalability is built into their business model, as is the case with LSPs. Moreover, handling exits from the factory, especially when participants are unresponsive or malicious, involves complex mechanisms that might require participants to pre-sign a large tree of potential exit transactions covering every possible combination of cooperative and uncooperative behavior. Imagine a five-person factory where one peer goes offline or rogue — each of the remaining peers would need pre-negotiated, pre-signed exit paths for every eventuality. Without automation or covenant support, managing this becomes a combinatorial and operational nightmare. These technical and UX constraints make it hard to deliver a seamless user experience or to scale such systems in production.

We’ve seen several proposals to optimize channel factories since 2019, with continuing interest but little production deployment — until now.

A Brief History of Channel Factory Proposals

One early and very comprehensive proposal for channel factories came from Conrad Burchert, Christian Decker and Roger Wattenhofer in their 2017 paper, “Scalable Funding of Bitcoin Micropayment Channel Networks.” Their design allows a group of participants to lock funds in a single multiparty UTXO and open multiple channels off-chain between pairs of participants. Each state transition (channel open, close or rebalance) requires a complete set of presigned transactions. This ensures that every participant has a cryptographically secure way to exit the factory if needed.

However, the Burchert-Decker-Wattenhofer construction has a serious scalability limitation: Any update to the factory state requires every participant to be online and sign off on the change. As the number of participants increases, the number of required signatures and pre-signed exit paths grows exponentially, as do the coordination overhead, the storage burden and the headaches.

Efforts to improve on this model have leveraged newer Bitcoin features. Taproot simplifies the structure of exit transactions by allowing their conditions to be encapsulated in a Merkle tree of scripts, with only the spending path revealed at redemption. This reduces both transaction size and privacy leakage. OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY (OP_CTV), a proposed soft fork, would dramatically streamline factories by enabling precommitted exit paths without the need for exhaustive presigning. With OP_CTV, a factory could commit to a set of exit transactions at the time of creation. Each participant would know that they can unilaterally exit in a well-defined way, reducing both interactivity and operational complexity.

Despite such progress, practical deployment has lagged. The barriers to full participant interactivity and complex signing schemes, especially in the absence of OP_CTV, are simply too high.

Ark and Spark: Next-Generation Channel Factories

Two recent projects, Ark and Spark, reimagine the channel factory with different trade-offs. While neither project explicitly markets itself as a “channel factory,” their architectures effectively realize many of the goals that early channel factory proposals aimed for. Since both are based on a shared UTXO and both are natively compatible with Lightning, Spark and Ark represent modern incarnations of channel factories that leverage today’s tooling and assumptions. At last! Both aim to preserve the benefits of channel factories (reduced chain usage, scalable liquidity allocation) while resolving key weaknesses around liveness, interactivity and exit complexity. Most importantly, both projects take a pragmatic approach to scaling. They work within Bitcoin’s current consensus rules, avoiding the need for soft forks or new opcodes to be useful today.

UTXO Sharing

Ark introduces a UTXO-sharing model built around the concept of virtual UTXOs (VTXOs). Instead of assigning users individual on-chain outputs, Ark lets them transact off-chain using a shared pool of liquidity managed by an Ark server. Users transact by requesting that a new distribution of VTXOs be included in the next round, when the Ark server creates an “Ark block” aggregating recent user activity and posts a new shared UTXO to the blockchain. So Ark lets users pass VTXOs among themselves and periodically settle the distribution of VTXOs in the shared UTXO via batched anchor transactions on the blockchain. 

Users can also perform out-of-round transactions, which instantly move VTXOs between users without waiting for the next round of anchor transactions. In this case, the Ark server co-signs the out-of-round payment, which may be compromised if the Ark server and the sender collude to double-spend the VTXO. However, the receiver can decide whether to accept the risk on the basis of the Ark server’s reputation and take the funds immediately, or to wait until the next round.

Spark takes a different path to shared UTXOs that builds on the concept of statechains. The fulcrum of Spark’s shared signing protocol is the Spark Operators (SOs), who come together in a consortium called a Spark Entity (SE). When a user joins Spark, they deposit funds into a shared-signature address controlled by themselves and the SE. The SE and the user pre-sign a withdrawal transaction, ensuring that the user can always exit unilaterally. A payment occurs whenever a new withdrawal transaction appears, which creates a new current state. Over time, the history of transactions takes on a tree structure, branching off from the original shared UTXO, and each terminal transaction owned by a user is called a “leaf.” Naturally, after each change, the SOs must delete past keys used for the past owner (i.e., pruning old leaves), and only one of the SOs in the SE must do so for the system to work securely. This allows Spark to offer trust-minimized, self-custodial off-chain payments while keeping the base UTXO unchanged. 

Like Ark, Spark also introduces some new assumptions about trust. Spark requires at least one SO (or some higher configurable threshold) in the SE to act honestly and delete outdated withdrawal transactions. The result is a “moment-in-time” trust model, in which trust is only required at the time of transfer: The system maintains perfect forward security as long as operators delete their key shares after a transfer. Once the keys are deleted, even a compromised or malicious operator cannot retroactively affect past transactions or steal funds, and a deletion by any SO counts for all the SOs in the SE, distributing responsibility among multiple operators.

Lightning Interoperability

To interop with Lightning, both Spark and Ark rely on swaps facilitated by LSPs. These LSPs must participate in a given Ark or Spark Entity to act as bridges: They execute Lightning payments on behalf of users in exchange for the assets inside the respective systems — VTXOs in Ark and leaves in Spark. The process is secured by atomicity: The LSP only receives the VTXO or leaf once it can prove that the Lightning payment has been successfully completed by providing a preimage. This allows users to make Lightning payments without operating a Lightning node themselves, and it anchors both systems firmly into the broader Lightning ecosystem.

If It Walks Like a Duck…

Channel factories increase scale by leveraging shared UTXOs to amplify Lightning’s scalability. By that measure, Ark and Spark are unequivocally channel factories, albeit sporting the latest fashions in VTXO and statechain technology. Given what shared-UTXO models like these are already achieving, we can expect great things from the channel-factory labs in the near future — especially if new opcodes are added to L1.

Both Ark and Spark are significant achievements in themselves, but they also both validate Lightning. Without being able to interoperate with other subnetworks — Liquid, Fedimint, Cashu, etc. — these revamped channel factories would be far less valuable. And it’s Lightning that lets them interoperate virtually anywhere bitcoin can go. The emergence of Spark and Ark is not a sign of Lightning’s limits but of its indispensability in today’s Bitcoin economy. 

Don’t miss your chance to own The Lightning Issue — featuring an exclusive interview with Lightning co-creator Tadge Dryja. It dives deep into Bitcoin’s most powerful scaling layer. Limited run. Only available while supplies last.

This piece is an article featured in the latest Print edition of Bitcoin Magazine, The Lightning Issue. We’re sharing it here to show the ideas explored throughout the full issue.

Source: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/print/ark-and-spark-the-channel-factories-print

Market Opportunity
Moonveil Logo
Moonveil Price(MORE)
$0,004059
$0,004059$0,004059
+0,02%
USD
Moonveil (MORE) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact [email protected] for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Wormhole Unveils W Token 2.0 with Enhanced Tokenomics

Wormhole Unveils W Token 2.0 with Enhanced Tokenomics

The post Wormhole Unveils W Token 2.0 with Enhanced Tokenomics appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Joerg Hiller Sep 17, 2025 13:57 Wormhole introduces W Token 2.0, featuring upgraded tokenomics, a strategic Wormhole Reserve, and a 4% base yield, aiming to optimize ecosystem growth and align incentives. Wormhole has announced a significant upgrade to its native token, unveiling the W Token 2.0. This upgrade introduces new tokenomics including the establishment of a Wormhole Reserve, a 4% base yield, and an optimized unlock schedule, marking a pivotal development in the ecosystem, according to Wormhole. The W Token Evolution Launched in October 2020, Wormhole’s W token has been central to the platform’s mission of creating a connected internet economy. The latest upgrade aims to enhance the token’s utility across more than 40 blockchains. With a capped supply of 10 billion, the W token supports governance, staking, and ecosystem growth, aligning incentives for network security and development. Introducing the Wormhole Reserve The Wormhole Reserve will accumulate value from both onchain and offchain activities, supporting the ecosystem’s expansion. As Wormhole adoption grows, the token will capture value through network expansions and ecosystem applications, ensuring that growth is directly reflected in the token’s value. 4% Base Yield and Governance Rewards Wormhole 2.0 introduces a 4% base yield for W holders who actively participate in governance. The yield, derived from existing token supplies and protocol revenues, is designed to incentivize active participation without inflating the token supply. Optimized Unlock Schedule Updating its token release schedule, Wormhole replaces annual cliffs with bi-weekly unlocks, starting October 3, 2025. This change aims to reduce market pressure and provide a more stable environment for investors and contributors. The bi-weekly schedule will span over 4.5 years, affecting categories such as Guardian Nodes and Community & Launch. Wormhole’s Future Vision With these upgrades, Wormhole aims to expand its role as…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 15:48
[OPINION] US National Security Strategy 2025: An iconoclastic document

[OPINION] US National Security Strategy 2025: An iconoclastic document

Trump's national security strategy signals a radical shift in US foreign policy, prioritizing economic power and regional interests over global commitments
Share
Rappler2025/12/16 12:30
Crucial US Stock Market Update: What Wednesday’s Mixed Close Reveals

Crucial US Stock Market Update: What Wednesday’s Mixed Close Reveals

BitcoinWorld Crucial US Stock Market Update: What Wednesday’s Mixed Close Reveals The financial world often keeps us on our toes, and Wednesday was no exception. Investors watched closely as the US stock market concluded the day with a mixed performance across its major indexes. This snapshot offers a crucial glimpse into current investor sentiment and economic undercurrents, prompting many to ask: what exactly happened? Understanding the Latest US Stock Market Movements On Wednesday, the closing bell brought a varied picture for the US stock market. While some indexes celebrated gains, others registered slight declines, creating a truly mixed bag for investors. The Dow Jones Industrial Average showed resilience, climbing by a notable 0.57%. This positive movement suggests strength in some of the larger, more established companies. Conversely, the S&P 500, a broader benchmark often seen as a barometer for the overall market, experienced a modest dip of 0.1%. The technology-heavy Nasdaq Composite also saw a slight retreat, sliding by 0.33%. This particular index often reflects investor sentiment towards growth stocks and the tech sector. These divergent outcomes highlight the complex dynamics currently at play within the American economy. It’s not simply a matter of “up” or “down” for the entire US stock market; rather, it’s a nuanced landscape where different sectors and company types are responding to unique pressures and opportunities. Why Did the US Stock Market See Mixed Results? When the US stock market delivers a mixed performance, it often points to a tug-of-war between various economic factors. Several elements could have contributed to Wednesday’s varied closings. For instance, positive corporate earnings reports from certain industries might have bolstered the Dow. At the same time, concerns over inflation, interest rate policies by the Federal Reserve, or even global economic uncertainties could have pressured growth stocks, affecting the S&P 500 and Nasdaq. Key considerations often include: Economic Data: Recent reports on employment, manufacturing, or consumer spending can sway market sentiment. Corporate Announcements: Strong or weak earnings forecasts from influential companies can significantly impact their respective sectors. Interest Rate Expectations: The prospect of higher or lower interest rates directly influences borrowing costs for businesses and consumer spending, affecting future profitability. Geopolitical Events: Global tensions or trade policies can introduce uncertainty, causing investors to become more cautious. Understanding these underlying drivers is crucial for anyone trying to make sense of daily market fluctuations in the US stock market. Navigating Volatility in the US Stock Market A mixed close, while not a dramatic downturn, serves as a reminder that market volatility is a constant companion for investors. For those involved in the US stock market, particularly individuals managing their portfolios, these days underscore the importance of a well-thought-out strategy. It’s important not to react impulsively to daily movements. Instead, consider these actionable insights: Diversification: Spreading investments across different sectors and asset classes can help mitigate risk when one area underperforms. Long-Term Perspective: Focusing on long-term financial goals rather than short-term gains can help weather daily market swings. Stay Informed: Keeping abreast of economic news and company fundamentals provides context for market behavior. Consult Experts: Financial advisors can offer personalized guidance based on individual risk tolerance and objectives. Even small movements in major indexes can signal shifts that require attention, guiding future investment decisions within the dynamic US stock market. What’s Next for the US Stock Market? Looking ahead, investors will be keenly watching for further economic indicators and corporate announcements to gauge the direction of the US stock market. Upcoming inflation data, statements from the Federal Reserve, and quarterly earnings reports will likely provide more clarity. The interplay of these factors will continue to shape investor confidence and, consequently, the performance of the Dow, S&P 500, and Nasdaq. Remaining informed and adaptive will be key to understanding the market’s trajectory. Conclusion: Wednesday’s mixed close in the US stock market highlights the intricate balance of forces influencing financial markets. While the Dow showed strength, the S&P 500 and Nasdaq experienced slight declines, reflecting a nuanced economic landscape. This reminds us that understanding the ‘why’ behind these movements is as important as the movements themselves. As always, a thoughtful, informed approach remains the best strategy for navigating the complexities of the market. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Q1: What does a “mixed close” mean for the US stock market? A1: A mixed close indicates that while some major stock indexes advanced, others declined. It suggests that different sectors or types of companies within the US stock market are experiencing varying influences, rather than a uniform market movement. Q2: Which major indexes were affected on Wednesday? A2: On Wednesday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 0.57%, while the S&P 500 edged down 0.1%, and the Nasdaq Composite slid 0.33%, illustrating the mixed performance across the US stock market. Q3: What factors contribute to a mixed stock market performance? A3: Mixed performances in the US stock market can be influenced by various factors, including specific corporate earnings, economic data releases, shifts in interest rate expectations, and broader geopolitical events that affect different market segments uniquely. Q4: How should investors react to mixed market signals? A4: Investors are generally advised to maintain a long-term perspective, diversify their portfolios, stay informed about economic news, and avoid impulsive decisions. Consulting a financial advisor can also provide personalized guidance for navigating the US stock market. Q5: What indicators should investors watch for future US stock market trends? A5: Key indicators to watch include upcoming inflation reports, statements from the Federal Reserve regarding monetary policy, and quarterly corporate earnings reports. These will offer insights into the future direction of the US stock market. Did you find this analysis of the US stock market helpful? Share this article with your network on social media to help others understand the nuances of current financial trends! To learn more about the latest stock market trends, explore our article on key developments shaping the US stock market‘s future performance. This post Crucial US Stock Market Update: What Wednesday’s Mixed Close Reveals first appeared on BitcoinWorld.
Share
Coinstats2025/09/18 05:30