<p>The current protocol implementations only allow one party to fund a channel.</p>

<p>If only one party funds the channel, then the first payments can only be sent from the funding party to the counterparty. After that, subsequent payments could go both directions (until the entire channel balance rests with one party, at that point transactions could again only flow in one direction. It is not possible to have 'debt' in a channel).</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-31T22:13:15.973Z
The current protocol actually only has one party putting in the funds.
Ava Chow
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-31T23:03:41.337Z
@AndrewChow oh! I actually wasn't aware of that, thanks. As I understand, it is technically possible to have both parties fund the channel, is there a reason this isn't included in the current protocol implementation?
chytrik
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-01-01T02:45:02.447Z
It is technically possible, and there really isn't anything stopping people from doing that. The restriction is only for simplicity and easier use for the first version of the protocol.
Ava Chow
CC BY-SA 4.0
2017-12-31T20:40:52.907Z
2019-04-29T02:59:55.633Z
2019-04-29T02:59:55.633Z
chytrik
<p>Watching a tutorial on how the <code>Lightning Network</code> works. Is it possible that only one party puts in money in the founding address / transaction?</p>

<lightning-network><ln-opening-channels>
Possible to create 5+0$ founding transaction in Ligthning Network?
János
# Possible to create 5+0$ founding transaction in Ligthning Network?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-12-31)

Watching a tutorial on how the `Lightning Network` works. Is it possible that only one party puts in money in the founding address / transaction?

**Tags:** lightning-network, ln-opening-channels


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2017-12-31. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

The current protocol implementations only allow one party to fund a channel.

If only one party funds the channel, then the first payments can only be sent from the funding party to the counterparty. After that, subsequent payments could go both directions (until the entire channel balance rests with one party, at that point transactions could again only flow in one direction. It is not possible to have 'debt' in a channel).

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: The current protocol actually only has one party putting in the funds.  
> **username_1**: @AndrewChow oh! I actually wasn't aware of that, thanks. As I understand, it is technically possible to have both parties fund the channel, is there a reason this isn't included in the current protocol implementation?  
> **username_2**: It is technically possible, and there really isn't anything stopping people from doing that. The restriction is only for simplicity and easier use for the first version of the protocol.  

---

