Hi all, Thanks so much for the great feedback over the last week. Seems like general agreement that adding a simple home for descriptive design documents focusing on new LN features would be a good thing, and augment the prescriptive BOLTs (which have done a great job getting us this far!).
If there is a point of contention, it seems to be about how not only this interacts with the existing BIP system, but also how the BOLTs interact with the BIP system. The only problem I have with BOLTs and bLIPs as BIPs is that it introduces large scope creep over what was originally a pretty simple proposal. I don't really care where these design documents exist, only that there is a standard format and that LN developers and users feel empowered to create them and share them with the broader ecosystem. If we proceed with creating bLIPs in the lightning-rfc repo today and later decide to recreate the BOLTs as BIPs, it will be no trouble at all to recreate bLIPs as BIPs as well. The BIP Process Wishlist sounds great and can be addressed independently. If recruits for merging the BOLTs can be found, we can tackle the mechanics of a merge then (alongside maybe some of the other bitcoin-related *IP repos that exist outside the BIPs? [1] [2]). Best, Ryan [1] https://github.com/satoshilabs/slips [2] https://github.com/rsksmart/RSKIPs On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 1:21 PM Antoine Riard <antoine.ri...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Ryan, > > Thanks for starting this discussion, I agree it's a good time for the > Lightning development community to start this self-introspection on its own > specification process :) > > First and foremost, maybe we could take a minute off to celebrate the > success of the BOLT process and the road traveled so far ? What was a fuzzy > heap of ideas on a whiteboard a few years ago has bloomed up to a living > and pulsating distributed ecosystem of thousands of nodes all around the > world. If the bet was to deliver on fast, instant, cheap, reasonably > scalable, reasonably confidential Bitcoin payments, it's a won one and > that's really cool. > > Retrospectively, it was a foolhardy bet for a wide diversity of factors. > One could think about opinionated, early design choices deeply affecting > protocol safety and efficiency of which the ultimate validity was still a > function of fluky base layer evolutions [0]. Another could consider the > communication challenges of softly aligning development teams on the common > effort of designing and deploying from scratch a cryptographic protocol as > sophisticated as Lightning. Not an easy task when you're mindful about the > timezones spread, the diversity of software engineering backgrounds and the > differing schedules of priorities. > > So kudos to everyone who has played a part in the Lightning dev process. > The OGs who started the tale, the rookies who jumped on the wagon on the > way and today newcomers showing up with new seeds to nurture the ecosystem > :) > > Now, I would say we more-or-less all agree that the current BOLT process > has reached its limits. Both from private conservations across the teams > but also frustrations expressed during the irc meetings in the past months. > Or as a simple data point, the only meaningful spec object we did merge on > the last 18 months is anchor output, it did consumes a lot of review and > engineering bandwidth from contributors, took few refinement to finalize > (`option_anchors_zero_fee_htlc_tx`) and I believe every implementations are > still scratching their heads on a robust, default fee-bumping strategy. > > So if we agree about the BOLT process limitations, the next question to > raise is how to improve it. Though there, as expressed in other replies, > I'm more we're not going to be able to do that much, as ultimately we're > upper bounded by a fast-pacing, always-growing, permissionless ecosystem of > applications and experiments moving forward in baazar-style and > lower-bounded by a decentralized process across teams allocating their > engineering resources with different priorities or even exploring Lightning > massive evolution stages in heterogenous, synergic directions. > > Breeding another specification process on top of Lightning sounds a good > way forward. Though I believe it might be better to take time to operate > the disentanglement nicely. If we take the list of ideas which could be > part of such a process, one of them, dynamic commitments could make a lot > of sense to be well-designed and well-supported by every implementation. In > case of emergency fixes to deploy safer channel types, if you have to close > all your channels with other implementations, on a holistic scale, it might > cloak the mempools and spike the feerate, strickening safety of every other > channel on the network. Yes we might have safety interdepencies between > implementations :/ > > And it's also good to have thoughtful, well-defined specification bounds > when you're working on coordinated security disclosures to know who has > implemented what and whom you should reach out when something is broken. > > Another orthogonal point to consider is the existence of already > higher-layer protocol specifications such as the dlcspecs. Even if the > ecosystem is still in the bootstrap phase for now, we already have a > discussion to split between a "consensus" track and more optional features. > I believe some features discussed there such as negotiation layer about > premium fee to compensate unilateral fee-bumping responsibility risk could > belong to such a new bLIPs process ? > > So here my thinking, as a BOLT contributor, what the common subset of > problems we want to keep tackling down together in the coming years, what > is the remaining subset we're happy to be engage by a higher layer > development community and how to draw both communication and software > interfaces in-between ? > > Personally, I would be glad if we not extend the scope of the current BOLT > coverage and focus more on fixing the known-issues, simplifying state > machines, fixing oddities of channel policies announcements [1], writing > down best practices on fee-bumping strategies, agreeing on channel types > upgrades raw mechanisms, features discovery and if we want to innovate > focus on taproot well-done integration which should keep us busy for few > years, among others PTLC support, funding output taproot support, > composable taptree for revokeable outputs, ... > > IHMO, if the BOLT process is officialized it will enter in a more boring > phase, focused on safety/reliability/privacy fixes on the initial value > proposition laid out above that's really okay :) > > I know, it might be a passionate discussion to have among ourselves as > everyone would like its pet project to benefit from the BOLT "boost > spotlight"... Though in the long term we can also imagine bLIPs as a > staging room with a formalized path for BOLT upgrade when it makes sense. > Also, we shouldn't expect a per-team position there as some of them are > deliberately "bazaar" in themselves :) > > Further I really believe this question of interfaces and > forward-flexibility across communities matters a lot. I would be glad if we > can save us some passionate discussions a few years from now on the size of > the onions, echo of the current discussion we have on the base layer, > where, among a lot, the current mempool package limits might not fit every > L2's chain of pre-committed transactions. > > Of course, offering more flexibility might come at the price of security > and privacy concerns, as the trampoline discussions raised it. Though in a > permissionless system like Bitcoin, even with a lot of good will, it's hard > to prevent folks from harming themselves. Maybe we can promote best > practices and design protocols and features combining both > economic-optimality and safety ? > > W.r.t to the TLV types/features bits/message types namespace allocation > issue, if it's heavily re-used by this upper specification, I feel it can > be still be handled by the BOLT community to minimize confusions risks, > though with a super-dumb, automatic process ? As the experience did learn > us in the past months, in Bitcoin, even standard slot allocation can be > contentious. > > More personally, I feel it would be better if such a new specification > process doesn't completely share the same communication infrastructure as > the BOLTs, like having them in the same repository. Otherwise it might > spread the belief among public perception that those standards have been > "blessed" in any way by LN devs and have been through the same thoroughness > of design and review process. Or even switching the communication and > standard maintenance on the author itself like Dave Harding's rough > proposal from a few months ago seems to suggest to me [2]. > > Cheers, > Antoine > > [0] > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2017-January/000652.html > > [1] > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2021-April/003005.html > > [2] > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-April/018868.html > > Le ven. 2 juil. 2021 à 04:48, Michael Folkson <michaelfolk...@gmail.com> > a écrit : > >> > The other thing bLIPs do is do away with the whole "human picks the >> number of documents", and "don't assign your own number, you must wait". >> >> So TL;DR BIPs and BOLTs sometimes require waiting for things (like >> review and consensus) and there should be a new acronym and process >> ("bLIPs") to avoid us having to wait for things. I just think "bLIPs" >> adds confusion e.g. should something be a bLIP or a BOLT? Does a bLIP >> eventually become a BOLT when it is mature enough? This tendency to >> fragment and introduce new acronyms and new processes should be >> resisted imo. If a new process is introduced every time there is a >> disagreement or perceived friction it just erodes the value of >> existing processes and means they all get bypassed. Strengthen and >> improve existing processes and only introduce a new one as an absolute >> last resort. >> >> Other than the minor frictions described above I don't see why "bLIPs" >> can't just be draft BOLTs. >> >> > Adding a third BIP editor more involved with Lightning sounds like a >> good idea. >> >> Or alternatively if BOLTs were subsumed into BIPs I think Bastien >> would be a great additional BIP editor to cover Lightning related BIPs >> :) I think BOLTs being subsumed into BIPs would be nice but I'm >> pessimistic it will happen. Like legislation and regulation in the >> legacy financial system alphabet soups only expand they never get >> simplified. Let's at least resist alphabet soup expansion here. >> >> On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 9:01 AM Bastien TEINTURIER <bast...@acinq.fr> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Will it actually add any more fragmentation that already exists? Due >> to all >> >> the extensibility we've added in the protocol, it's already possible >> for any >> >> implementation to start to work on their own sub-protocols. This just >> gives >> >> them a new venue to at least _describe_ what they're using. >> > >> > >> > It's only my 2 cents, but I'm afraid it will indeed add more >> fragmentation, because >> > the fact that there exists a bLIP for feature XXX will likely act as a >> green light to >> > deploy it faster instead of spending more time talking about it with >> the community >> > and thinking about potential issues, forward-compatibility, etc. >> > >> > But I agree with you that it also gives more freedom to experiment in >> the real world, >> > which helps find issues and correct them, paving the way for better >> features for >> > end users. >> > >> >> It's also likely the case that already implementations, or typically >> forks >> >> of implementations are already using "undocumented" TLVs or feature >> bits in >> >> the wild today. >> > >> > >> > But today we're usually very careful when we do that, and use numbers >> in high ranges >> > for these use-cases. In our case for example we use message type 35007 >> for our >> > swap-in and we expect that to change once standardized, so we did extra >> work to >> > ensure we wouldn't paint ourselves into a corner when switching to a >> standard version. >> > >> > I think that if we have a centralized bLIP repo, we can take this >> opportunity to safely >> > assign "final" values for types and feature bits that are used by each >> bLIP, and stronger >> > guarantees that they will not conflict with another bLIP or BOLT. Of >> course that doesn't >> > stop anyone from deploying a conflict, but their use of the same bits >> won't be documented >> > so it shouldn't be widely deployed, and browsing the BOLTs and bLIPs >> should let anyone >> > see what the "correct" meaning of those bits should be. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Bastien >> > >> > >> > Le jeu. 1 juil. 2021 à 22:43, Olaoluwa Osuntokun <laol...@gmail.com> a >> écrit : >> >> >> >> > But they don't address the first point at all, they instead work >> around >> >> > it. To be fair, I don't think we can completely address that first >> point: >> >> > properly reviewing spec proposals takes a lot of effort and accepting >> >> > complex changes to the BOLTs shouldn't be done lightly. >> >> >> >> I think this is a fair characterization that I agree with. I also >> agree that >> >> there isn't really a way to fundamentally address it. The issue of >> scarce >> >> review resources is something just about any large open source project >> needs >> >> to deal with: everyone wants to make a PR, but no one wants to review >> the >> >> PRs of others, unless it scratches some tangential itch they may have. >> IMO >> >> it's also the case that the problem/solution space of LN is so large, >> that >> >> it's hard to expect every developer to review each new proposal that >> comes >> >> in, as they themselves have their own set of priorities (product, >> >> businesses, protocol, personal, etc). >> >> >> >> In the end though, I think when there've been critical items that >> affect all >> >> implementations and/or the existence of the protocol itself, developers >> >> typically band together to commit resources to help a proposal move >> forward. >> >> One upcoming example of this will be the "base" taproot channel type >> (the >> >> design space is pretty large in that it even permits a new type of >> symmetric >> >> state revocation-based channel). >> >> >> >> > it will add fragmentation to the network, it will add maintenance >> costs >> >> > and backwards-compatibility issues >> >> >> >> Will it actually add any more fragmentation that already exists? Due >> to all >> >> the extensibility we've added in the protocol, it's already possible >> for any >> >> implementation to start to work on their own sub-protocols. This just >> gives >> >> them a new venue to at least _describe_ what they're using. As usual, >> it's >> >> up to other implementations if they want to adopt it or not, or advise >> >> against its use. >> >> >> >> > many bLIPs will be sub-optimal solutions to the problem they try to >> solve >> >> > and some bLIPs will be simply insecure and may put users' funds at >> risk >> >> > (L2 protocols are hard and have subtle issues that can be easily >> missed) >> >> >> >> This may be the case, but I guess at times it's hard to know if >> something is >> >> objectively sub-optimal without further exploration of the design >> space, >> >> which usually means either more people involved, or more time >> examining the >> >> problem. Ultimately, different wallets/implementations may also be >> willing >> >> to make different usability/security trade-offs. One example here is >> zero >> >> conf channels: they assume a greater degree of trust with the party >> you're >> >> _accepting_ the channel from, as if you receive funds over the >> channel, they >> >> can be double spent away. However it's undeniable that they improve >> the UX >> >> by reducing the amount of time a user needs to wait around before they >> can >> >> actually jump in and use LN. >> >> >> >> In the end though, there's no grand global committee that prevents >> people >> >> from deploying software they think is interesting or useful. In the >> long >> >> run, I guess one simply needs to hope that bad ideas die out, or speak >> out >> >> against them to the public. As LN sits a layer above the base protocol, >> >> widespread global consensus isn't really required to make certain >> classes of >> >> changes, and you can't stop people from experimenting on their own. >> >> >> >> > We can't have collisions on any of these three things. >> >> >> >> Yeah, collisions are def possible. IMO, this is where the interplay >> with >> >> BOLTs comes in: BOLTs are the global feature bit/tlv/message >> namespace. A >> >> bLIP might come with the amendment of BOLT 9 to define feature bits >> they >> >> used. Of course, this should be done on a best effort basis, as even >> if you >> >> assign a bit for your idea, someone can just go ahead and deploy >> something >> >> else w/ that same bit, and they may never really intersect depending >> on the >> >> nature or how widespread the new feature is. >> >> >> >> It's also likely the case that already implementations, or typically >> forks >> >> of implementations are already using "undocumented" TLVs or feature >> bits in >> >> the wild today. I don't know exactly which TLV type things like >> applications >> >> that tunnel messages over the network use, but afaik so far there >> haven't >> >> been any disastrous collisions in the wild. >> >> >> >> -- Laolu >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 2:19 AM Bastien TEINTURIER <bast...@acinq.fr> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Thanks for starting that discussion. >> >>> >> >>> In my opinion, what we're really trying to address here are the two >> following >> >>> points (at least from the point of view of someone who works on the >> spec and >> >>> an implementation): >> >>> >> >>> - Implementers get frustrated when they've worked on something that >> they think >> >>> is useful and they can't get it into the BOLTs (the spec PR isn't >> reviewed, >> >>> it progresses too slowly or there isn't enough agreement to merge it) >> >>> - Implementers expect other implementers to specify the optional >> features they >> >>> ship: we don't want to have to reverse-engineer a sub-protocol when >> users >> >>> want our implementation to provide support for feature XXX >> >>> >> >>> Note that these are two very different concerns. >> >>> >> >>> bLIPs/SPARKS/BIPs clearly address the second point, which is good. >> >>> But they don't address the first point at all, they instead work >> around it. >> >>> To be fair, I don't think we can completely address that first point: >> properly >> >>> reviewing spec proposals takes a lot of effort and accepting complex >> changes >> >>> to the BOLTs shouldn't be done lightly. >> >>> >> >>> I am mostly in favor of this solution, but I want to highlight that >> it isn't >> >>> only rainbows and unicorns: it will add fragmentation to the network, >> it will >> >>> add maintenance costs and backwards-compatibility issues, many bLIPs >> will be >> >>> sub-optimal solutions to the problem they try to solve and some bLIPs >> will be >> >>> simply insecure and may put users' funds at risk (L2 protocols are >> hard and have >> >>> subtle issues that can be easily missed). On the other hand, it >> allows for real >> >>> world experimentation and iteration, and it's easier to amend a bLIP >> than the >> >>> BOLTs. >> >>> >> >>> On the nuts-and-bolts (see the pun?) side, bLIPs cannot embrace a >> fully bazaar >> >>> style of evolution. Most of them will need: >> >>> >> >>> - to assign feature bit(s) >> >>> - to insert new tlv fields in existing messages >> >>> - to create new messages >> >>> >> >>> We can't have collisions on any of these three things. bLIP XXX >> cannot use the >> >>> same tlv types as bLIP YYY otherwise we're creating network >> incompatibilities. >> >>> So they really need to be centralized, and we need a process to >> assign these >> >>> and ensure they don't collide. It's not a hard problem, but we need >> to be clear >> >>> about the process around those. >> >>> >> >>> Regarding the details of where they live, I don't have a strong >> opinion, but I >> >>> think they must be easy to find and browse, and I think it's easier >> for readers >> >>> if they're inside the spec repository. We already have PRs that use a >> dedicated >> >>> "proposals" folder (e.g. [1], [2]). >> >>> >> >>> Cheers, >> >>> Bastien >> >>> >> >>> [1] https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/pull/829 >> >>> [2] https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/pull/854 >> >>> >> >>> Le jeu. 1 juil. 2021 à 02:31, Ariel Luaces <ariellua...@gmail.com> a >> écrit : >> >>>> >> >>>> BIPs are already the Bazaar style of evolution that simultaneously >> >>>> allows flexibility and coordination/interoperability (since anyone >> can >> >>>> create a BIP and they create an environment of discussion). >> >>>> >> >>>> BOLTs are essentially one big BIP in the sense that they started as a >> >>>> place for discussion but are now more rigid. BOLTs must be followed >> >>>> strictly to ensure a node is interoperable with the network. And >> BOLTs >> >>>> should be rigid, as rigid as any widely used BIP like 32 for example. >> >>>> Even though BOLTs were flexible when being drafted their purpose has >> >>>> changed from descriptive to prescriptive. >> >>>> Any alternatives, or optional features should be extracted out of >> >>>> BOLTs, written as BIPs. The BIP should then reference the BOLT and >> the >> >>>> required flags set, messages sent, or alterations made to signal that >> >>>> the BIP's feature is enabled. >> >>>> >> >>>> A BOLT may at some point organically change to reference a BIP. For >> >>>> example if a BIP was drafted as an optional feature but then becomes >> >>>> more widespread and then turns out to be crucial for the proper >> >>>> operation of the network then a BOLT can be changed to just reference >> >>>> the BIP as mandatory. There isn't anything wrong with this. >> >>>> >> >>>> All of the above would work exactly the same if there was a bLIP >> >>>> repository instead. I don't see the value in having both bLIPs and >> >>>> BIPs since AFAICT they seem to be functionally equivalent and BIPs >> are >> >>>> not restricted to exclude lightning, and never have been. >> >>>> >> >>>> I believe the reason this move to BIPs hasn't happened organically is >> >>>> because many still perceive the BOLTs available for editing, so >> >>>> changes continue to be made. If instead BOLTs were perceived as more >> >>>> "consensus critical", not subject to change, and more people were >> >>>> strongly encouraged to write specs for new lightning features >> >>>> elsewhere (like the BIP repo) then you would see this issue of >> growing >> >>>> BOLTs resolved. >> >>>> >> >>>> Cheers >> >>>> Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces >> >>>> >> >>>> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 1:16 PM Olaoluwa Osuntokun < >> laol...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> > >> >>>> > > That being said I think all the points that are addressed in >> Ryan's mail >> >>>> > > could very well be formalized into BOLTs but maybe we just need >> to rethink >> >>>> > > the current process of the BOLTs to make it more accessible for >> new ideas >> >>>> > > to find their way into the BOLTs? >> >>>> > >> >>>> > I think part of what bLIPs are trying to solve here is promoting >> more loosely >> >>>> > coupled evolution of the network. I think the BOLTs do a good job >> currently of >> >>>> > specifying what _base_ functionality is required for a routing >> node in a >> >>>> > prescriptive manner (you must forward an HTLC like this, etc). >> However there's >> >>>> > a rather large gap in describing functionality that has emerged >> over time due >> >>>> > to progressive evolution, and aren't absolutely necessary, but >> enhance >> >>>> > node/wallet operation. >> >>>> > >> >>>> > Examples of include things like: path finding heuristics (BOLTs >> just say you >> >>>> > should get from Alice to Bob, but provides no recommendations >> w.r.t _how_ to do >> >>>> > so), fee bumping heuristics, breach retribution handling, channel >> management, >> >>>> > rebalancing, custom records usage (like the podcast index >> meta-data, messaging, >> >>>> > etc), JIT channel opening, hosted channels, randomized channel >> IDs, fee >> >>>> > optimization, initial channel boostrapping, etc. >> >>>> > >> >>>> > All these examples are effectively optional as they aren't >> required for base >> >>>> > node operation, but they've organically evolved over time as node >> >>>> > implementations and wallet seek to solve UX and operational >> problems for >> >>>> > their users. bLIPs can be a _descriptive_ (this is how things can >> be done) >> >>>> > home for these types of standards, while BOLTs can be reserved for >> >>>> > _prescriptive_ measures (an HTLC looks like this, etc). >> >>>> > >> >>>> > The protocol as implemented today has a number of extensions >> (TLVs, message >> >>>> > types, feature bits, etc) that allow implementations to spin out >> their own >> >>>> > sub-protocols, many of which won't be considered absolutely >> necessary for node >> >>>> > operation. IMO we should embrace more of a "bazaar" style of >> evolution, and >> >>>> > acknowledge that loosely coupled evolution allows participants to >> more broadly >> >>>> > explore the design space, without the constraints of "it isn't a >> thing until N >> >>>> > of us start to do it". >> >>>> > >> >>>> > Historically, BOLTs have also had a rather monolithic structure. >> We've used >> >>>> > the same 11 or so documents for the past few years with the size >> of the >> >>>> > documents swelling over time with new exceptions, features, >> requirements, >> >>>> > etc. If you were hired to work on a new codebase and saw that >> everything is >> >>>> > defined in 11 "functions" that have been growing linearly over >> time, you'd >> >>>> > probably declare the codebase as being unmaintainable. By having >> distinct >> >>>> > documents for proposals/standards, bLIPs (author documents >> really), each new >> >>>> > standard/proposal is able to be more effectively explained, >> motivated, versionsed, >> >>>> > etc. >> >>>> > >> >>>> > -- Laolu >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 7:35 AM René Pickhardt via Lightning-dev < >> lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> Hey everyone, >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> just for reference when I was new here (and did not understand >> the processes well enough) I proposed a similar idea (called LIP) in 2018 >> c.f.: >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2018-July/001367.html >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> I wonder what exactly has changed in the reasoning by roasbeef >> which I will repeat here: >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> > We already have the equiv of improvement proposals: BOLTs. >> Historically >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> > new standardization documents are proposed initially as issues >> or PR's when >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> > ultimately accepted. Why do we need another repo? >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> As far as I can tell there was always some form of (invisible?) >> barrier to participate in the BOLTs but there are also new BOLTs being >> offered: >> >>>> >> * BOLT 12: >> https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/pull/798 >> >>>> >> * BOLT 14: >> https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/pull/780 >> >>>> >> and topics to be included like: >> >>>> >> * dual funding >> >>>> >> * splicing >> >>>> >> * the examples given by Ryan >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> I don't see how a new repo would reduce that barrier - Actually I >> think it would even create more confusion as I for example would not know >> where something belongs. That being said I think all the points that are >> addressed in Ryan's mail could very well be formalized into BOLTs but maybe >> we just need to rethink the current process of the BOLTs to make it more >> accessible for new ideas to find their way into the BOLTs? One thing that I >> can say from answering lightning-network questions on stackexchange is that >> it would certainly help if the BOLTs where referenced on lightning.network >> web page and in the whitepaper as the place to be if one wants to learn >> about the Lightning Network >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> with kind regards Rene >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 4:10 PM Ryan Gentry via Lightning-dev < >> lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> Hi all, >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> The recent thread around zero-conf channels [1] provides an >> opportunity to discuss how the BOLT process handles features and best >> practices that arise in the wild vs. originating within the process itself. >> Zero-conf channels are one of many LN innovations on the app layer that >> have struggled to make their way into the spec. John Carvalho and Bitrefill >> launched Turbo channels in April 2019 [2], Breez posted their solution to >> the mailing list for feedback in August 2020 [3], and we know at least >> ACINQ and Muun (amongst others) have their own implementations. In an ideal >> world there would be a descriptive design document that the app layer >> implementers had collaborated on over the years that the spec group could >> then pick up and merge into the BOLTs now that the feature is deemed >> spec-worthy. >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> Over the last couple of months, we have discussed the idea of >> adding a BIP-style process (bLIPs? SPARKs? [4]) on top of the BOLTs with >> various members of the community, and have received positive feedback from >> both app layer and protocol devs. This would not affect the existing BOLT >> process at all, but simply add a place for app layer best practices to be >> succinctly described and organized, especially those that require >> coordination. These features are being built outside of the BOLT process >> today anyways, so ideally a bLIP process would bring them into the fold >> instead of leaving them buried in old ML posts or not documented at all. >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> Some potential bLIP ideas that people have mentioned include: >> each lnurl variant, on-the-fly channel opens, AMP, dynamic commitments, >> podcast payment metadata, p2p messaging formats, new pathfinding >> heuristics, remote node connection standards, etc. >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> If the community is interested in moving forward, we've started >> a branch [5] describing such a process. It's based on BIP-0002, so not >> trying to reinvent any wheels. It would be great to have developers from >> various implementations and from the broader app layer ecosystem volunteer >> to be listed as editors (basically the same role as in the BIPs). >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> Looking forward to hearing your thoughts! >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> Best, >> >>>> >>> Ryan >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> [1] >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2021-June/003074.html >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> [2] >> https://www.coindesk.com/bitrefills-thor-turbo-lets-you-get-started-with-bitcoins-lightning-faster >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> [3] >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2020-August/002780.html >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> [4] bLIP = Bitcoin Lightning Improvement Proposal and SPARK = >> Standardization of Protocols at the Request of the Kommunity (h/t fiatjaf) >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> [5] >> https://github.com/ryanthegentry/lightning-rfc/blob/blip-0001/blips/blip-0001.mediawiki >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>> >>> Lightning-dev mailing list >> >>>> >>> Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> >>>> >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> -- >> >>>> >> https://www.rene-pickhardt.de >> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >> >>>> >> Lightning-dev mailing list >> >>>> >> Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> >>>> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev >> >>>> > >> >>>> > _______________________________________________ >> >>>> > Lightning-dev mailing list >> >>>> > Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> >>>> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>> Lightning-dev mailing list >> >>>> Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> >>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> Lightning-dev mailing list >> >>> Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Lightning-dev mailing list >> > Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev >> >> >> >> -- >> Michael Folkson >> Email: michaelfolk...@gmail.com >> Keybase: michaelfolkson >> PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3 >> _______________________________________________ >> Lightning-dev mailing list >> Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > Lightning-dev mailing list > Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev >
_______________________________________________ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
