Use this skill when
- Explaining Bitcoin Lightning channel factories and scalable onboarding
- Discussing the SuperScalar protocol architecture and design
- Needing guidance on Decker-Wattenhofer trees, timeout-signature trees, or MuSig2
Do not use this skill when
- The task is unrelated to Bitcoin or Lightning Network scaling
- 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
Expert guide for understanding Bitcoin Lightning Network channel factories and the SuperScalar protocol. Covers scalable onboarding, shared UTXOs, Decker-Wattenhofer invalidation trees, timeout-signature trees, Poon-Dryja channels, MuSig2 (BIP-327), and Taproot — all without requiring any soft fork.
Key Topics
- Lightning channel factories and multi-party channels
- SuperScalar protocol architecture
- Decker-Wattenhofer invalidation trees
- Timeout-signature trees
- MuSig2 key aggregation (BIP-327)
- Taproot script trees
- LSP (Lightning Service Provider) onboarding patterns
- Shared UTXO management
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:
Explain Bitcoin Lightning channel factories and scalable onboarding.
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.
