lightning-channel-factories

Use this skill when

• Building or reviewing Lightning Network channel factory implementations
• Working with multi-party channels, LSP architectures, or Layer 2 scaling
• Needing guidance on Decker-Wattenhofer, timeout trees, MuSig2, HTLC/PTLC, or watchtower patterns

Do not use this skill when

• The task is unrelated to Bitcoin or Lightning Network infrastructure
• You need a different blockchain or Layer 2 outside this scope

Instructions

• Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs.
• Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes.
• Provide actionable steps and verification.

The declared community implementation at 8144225309/SuperScalar returned HTTP 404 on 2026-10-14. Do not treat it as a verified production implementation, funded-mainnet deployment, 400-test suite or audited watchtower. The original SuperScalar proposal is a protocol source, not proof that a similarly named repository implements it correctly.

Purpose

Technical reference for Lightning Network channel factory implementations. Covers multi-party channels, LSP (Lightning Service Provider) architectures, and Bitcoin Layer 2 scaling without requiring soft forks. Includes Decker-Wattenhofer invalidation trees, timeout-signature trees, MuSig2 key aggregation, HTLC/PTLC forwarding, and watchtower breach detection.

Key Topics

• Channel factory implementation in C
• MuSig2 (BIP-327) and Schnorr adaptor signatures
• Encrypted Noise NK transport protocol
• SQLite persistence layer
• Watchtower breach detection
• HTLC/PTLC forwarding
• Regtest, signet, testnet, and mainnet support
• Actual implementation tests, vectors and reproducible exit behavior

References

• SuperScalar project: https://github.com/8144225309/SuperScalar
• Website: https://SuperScalar.win
• Original proposal: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/superscalar-laddered-timeout-tree-structured-decker-wattenhofer-factories/1143

Example

User request:

Build or reviewing Lightning Network channel factory implementations.

Limitations

• Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
• Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
• Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.

Review evidence

Distinguish proposal properties from a specific implementation revision. Trace funding ownership, required signers, offline/liveness assumptions, timelock ordering, old-state invalidation, recovery artifacts, fee/bump behavior and unilateral exit under congestion. Define what N measures before stating complexity. Verify HTLC/PTLC and watchtower compatibility with actual protocol versions and test vectors; a claim of no consensus change does not establish deployability or safety. Use an isolated regtest fixture; signing, funding or broadcasting with real funds needs separate explicit authorization.