# Upgrading Existing Lightning Channels **URL:** \ **Category:** Protocol Design\ **Tags:** lightning\ **Created:** [May 17, 2024, 4:59pm UTC](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/upgrading-existing-lightning-channels/881 "2024-05-17T16:59:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 7
**Author:** ![ProofOfKeags](https://delvingbitcoin.org/user_avatar/delvingbitcoin.org/proofofkeags/32/2035_2.png) [@ProofOfKeags](https://delvingbitcoin.org/u/ProofOfKeags)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2024, 8:33pm UTC](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/upgrading-existing-lightning-channels/881/7 "2024-05-24T20:33:44Z")
I guess the question I have is whether or not people want to see DynComms broken up into two proposals: the part with the funding output conversion, and the part without. I think we are amenable to breaking up the text into separate documents or per your suggestion maybe just different PRs into the same document if they are sharing a negotiation process. If breaking it up means we can get better prioritization from Eclair/CLN/LDK for the ability to change the state-space constraints and the commitment rendering function, we are happy to do so. Being able to reuse DynComms for TRUC commitments seems like a very natural evolution to me. CC @t-bast @rustyrussell @MattCorallo --- _[View the full topic](https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/upgrading-existing-lightning-channels/881)._