On 10/12/21 12:57, Olaoluwa Osuntokun wrote:
Hi Fabrice,
> I believe that was a mistake: a few days ago, Arcane Research published a
> fairly detailed report on the state of the Lightning Network:
> https://twitter.com/ArcaneResearch/status/1445442967582302213
<https://twitter.com/ArcaneResearch/status/1445442967582302213>. They
> obviously did some real work there, and seem to imply that their report
> was vetted by Open Node and Lightning Labs.
Appreciate the hard work from Arcane on putting together this report. That
said, our role wasn't to review the entire report, but instead to provide
feedback on questions they had. Had we reviewed the section in question, we
would have spotted those errors and told the authors to fix them. Mistakes
happen, and we're glad it got corrected.
Also note that lnd has _never_ referred to itself as the "reference"
implementation. A few years ago some other implementations adopted that
title themselves, but have since adopted softer language.
> So I'm proposing that lnd's source code be removed from
> https://github.com/lightningnetwork/ <https://github.com/lightningnetwork/>
(and moved to
> https://github.com/lightninglabs <https://github.com/lightninglabs> for example, with the rest of
their
> Lightning tools, but it's up to Lightning Labs).
I think it's worth briefly revisiting a bit of history here w.r.t the github
org in question. In the beginning, the lightningnetwork github org was
created by Joseph, and the lightningnetwork/paper repo was added, the
manuscript that kicked off this entire thing. Later lightningnetwork/lnd was
created where we started to work on an initial implementation (before the
BOLTs in their current form existed), and we were added as owners.
Eventually we (devs of current impls) all met up in Milan and decided to
converge on a single specification, thus we added the BOLTs to the same
repo, despite it being used for lnd and knowingly so.
We purposefully made a _new_ lightninglabs github org as we wanted to keep
lnd, the implementation distinct from any of our future commercial
products/services. To this day, we've architected all our paid products to
be built _on top_ of lnd, rather than within it. As a result, users always
opt into these services.
As it seems the primary grievance here is collocating an implementation of
Lightning along with the _specification_ of the protocol, and given that the
spec was added last, how about we move the spec to an independent repo owned
by the community? I currently have github.com/lightning <http://github.com/lightning>, and would be
happy
to donate it to the community, or we could create a new org like
"lightning-specs" or something similar. We could then move the spec (the
BOLTs and also potentially the bLIPs since some devs want it to be within
its own repo) there, and have it be the home for any other
community-backed/owned projects. I think the creation of a new github
organization would also be a good opportunity to further formalize the set
of stakeholders and the general process related to the evolution of
Lightning the protocol.
Thoughts?
No super strong opinion on where things end up, but roughly agree they should be separate. In other
words, this proposal sounds good to me, want to set it up?
Matt
_______________________________________________
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
