Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] A new Bitcoin implementation integrated with Core Lightning
Hi Michael,While I don’t think forks of Core with an intent to drive consensus rule changes (or lack thereof) benefits the bitcoin system as the Bitcoin Core project stands today, if you want to build a nice full node wallet with lightning based on a fork of Core, there was code written to do this some years ago.https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18179It never went anywhere as lightning (and especially LDK!) were far from ready to be a first class feature in bitcoin core at the time (and I’d argue still today), but as a separate project it could be interesting, at least if maintenance burden were kept to a sustainable level.MattOn Jan 14, 2023, at 13:03, Michael Folkson via Lightning-dev wrote:I tweeted this [0] back in November 2022."With the btcd bugs and the analysis paralysis on a RBF policy option in Core increasingly thinking @BitcoinKnots and consensus compatible forks of Core are the future. Gonna chalk that one up to another thing @LukeDashjr was right about all along."A new bare bones Knots style Bitcoin implementation (in C++/C) integrated with Core Lightning was a long term idea I had (and presumably many others have had) but the dysfunction on the Bitcoin Core project this week (if anything it has been getting worse over time, not better) has made me start to take the idea more seriously. It is clear to me that the current way the Bitcoin Core project is being managed is not how I would like an open source project to be managed. Very little discussion is public anymore and decisions seem to be increasingly made behind closed doors or in private IRC channels (to the extent that decisions are made at all). Core Lightning seems to have the opposite problem. It is managed effectively in the open (admittedly with fewer contributors) but doesn't have the eyeballs or the usage that Bitcoin Core does. Regardless, selfishly I at some point would like a bare bones Bitcoin and Lightning implementation integrated in one codebase. The Bitcoin Core codebase has collected a lot of cruft over time and the ultra conservatism that is needed when treating (potential) consensus code seems to permeate into parts of the codebase that no one is using, definitely isn't consensus code and should probably just be removed.The libbitcoinkernel project was (is?) an attempt to extract the consensus engine out of Core but it seems like it won't achieve that as consensus is just too slippery a concept and Knots style consensus compatible codebase forks of Bitcoin Core seem to still the model. To what extent you can safely chop off this cruft and effectively maintain this less crufty fork of Bitcoin Core also isn't clear to me yet.Then there is the question of whether it makes sense to mix C and C++ code that people have different views on. C++ is obviously a superset of C but assuming this merging of Bitcoin Core and Core Lightning is/was the optimal final destination it surely would have been better if Core Lightning was written in the same language (i.e. with classes) as Bitcoin Core.I'm just floating the idea to (hopefully) hear from people who are much more familiar with the entirety of the Bitcoin Core and Core Lightning codebases. It would be an ambitious long term project but it would be nice to focus on some ambitious project(s) (even if just conceptually) for a while given (thankfully) there seems to be a lull in soft fork activation chaos.ThanksMichael[0]: https://twitter.com/michaelfolkson/status/1589220155006910464?s=20=GbPm7w5BqS7rS3kiVFTNcw --Michael FolksonEmail: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com Keybase: michaelfolksonPGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3 ___Lightning-dev mailing listlightning-...@lists.linuxfoundation.orghttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] A new Bitcoin implementation integrated with Core Lightning
Hi Michael and Lisa, > Hi Michael, > > CLN as implemented is currently nicely decoupled from the block source; as > a project we assume that the node runner will choose a block backend that > fits their self-sovereignty goals. > > This provides us with a nice separation of concerns. The block source is > responsible for ensuring that only consensus valid data is delivered to the > node, which in turn allows us to focus on processing and reacting to that > data, as necessary. Let me just mention that [1] I have been working on a plugin that allows experimentation with different types of Bitcoin Core node alternatives (including core too), and it also supports BIP 157 with nakamoto [2]. In the upcoming months, I plan to allocate some time to work directly on Nakamoto. > There’s probably a real opportunity to “comingle” the peering of LN gossip > + block data networks, this has been suggested a few times but never > seriously pursued from the LN side. Having the peering functions of > bitcoin-core broken out into a more composable/reusable piece may be a good > first step here, and as a project would largely be on the bitcoin core > side. Maybe this work is already in progress? I havent been keeping up with > developments there. A missing piece at the moment is a unified approach to fee calculation. This logic is critical for Lightning nodes, so if we don't have a uniform way of estimating fees, it could lead to several issues. P.S: The fee estimation problem may have already been solved by Neutrino, but I'm not aware of it. [1] https://github.com/coffee-tools/folgore [2] https://github.com/cloudhead/nakamoto Cheers! Vincent. ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] A new Bitcoin implementation integrated with Core Lightning
Hi Michael, CLN as implemented is currently nicely decoupled from the block source; as a project we assume that the node runner will choose a block backend that fits their self-sovereignty goals. This provides us with a nice separation of concerns. The block source is responsible for ensuring that only consensus valid data is delivered to the node, which in turn allows us to focus on processing and reacting to that data, as necessary. Bitcoin core as a project implements a broad swath of functionality (wallet, consensus, peering, rpc server, coin selection, key management, etc); breaking out the validation and peering functions into more composable parts would def open up more opportunities for building block sources for a wide variety of projects, not just CLN. There’s probably a real opportunity to “comingle” the peering of LN gossip + block data networks, this has been suggested a few times but never seriously pursued from the LN side. Having the peering functions of bitcoin-core broken out into a more composable/reusable piece may be a good first step here, and as a project would largely be on the bitcoin core side. Maybe this work is already in progress? I havent been keeping up with developments there. Thanks for the email, it’s definitely a good question. Lisa On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 02:09 Michael Folkson via Lightning-dev < lightning-...@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Any thoughts on this from the Core Lightning contributors? The way I see > it with upcoming proposed changes to default policy (primarily though not > exclusively for Lightning) and a soft fork activation attempt of APO/APOAS > (primarily though not exclusively for Lightning) that a tighter coupling > between the full node and the Lightning node could eventually make sense. > In a world where transaction fees were much higher you'd think almost every > full node would also want to be a Lightning node and so the separation of > concerns would make less sense. Having two separate P2P networks and two > separate P2P protocols also wouldn't make much sense in this scenario. You > could obviously still opt out of Lightning P2P messages if you weren't > interested in Lightning. > > The alternative would be just to focus on Knots style consensus compatible > forks of Core with limited additional functionality. But I think we've > reached the point of no return on Core dominance and not having widely used > "distros". As the ecosystem scales systems and processes should be > constantly evolving and improving and to me if anything Core's seem to be > going backwards. > > Thanks > Michael > > -- > Michael Folkson > Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com > Keybase: michaelfolkson > PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3 > > --- Original Message --- > > On Saturday, January 14th, 2023 at 20:26, Michael Folkson < > michaelfolk...@protonmail.com> wrote: > > I tweeted this [0] back in November 2022. > > "With the btcd bugs and the analysis paralysis on a RBF policy option in > Core increasingly thinking @BitcoinKnots and consensus compatible forks of > Core are the future. Gonna chalk that one up to another thing @LukeDashjr > was right about all along." > > A new bare bones Knots style Bitcoin implementation (in C++/C) integrated > with Core Lightning was a long term idea I had (and presumably many others > have had) but the dysfunction on the Bitcoin Core project this week (if > anything it has been getting worse over time, not better) has made me start > to take the idea more seriously. It is clear to me that the current way the > Bitcoin Core project is being managed is not how I would like an open > source project to be managed. Very little discussion is public anymore and > decisions seem to be increasingly made behind closed doors or in private > IRC channels (to the extent that decisions are made at all). Core Lightning > seems to have the opposite problem. It is managed effectively in the open > (admittedly with fewer contributors) but doesn't have the eyeballs or the > usage that Bitcoin Core does. Regardless, selfishly I at some point would > like a bare bones Bitcoin and Lightning implementation integrated in one > codebase. The Bitcoin Core codebase has collected a lot of cruft over time > and the ultra conservatism that is needed when treating (potential) > consensus code seems to permeate into parts of the codebase that no one is > using, definitely isn't consensus code and should probably just be removed. > > The libbitcoinkernel project was (is?) an attempt to extract the consensus > engine out of Core but it seems like it won't achieve that as consensus is > just too slippery a concept and Knots style consensus compatible codebase > forks of Bitcoin Core seem to still the model. To what extent you can > safely chop off this cruft and effectively maintain this less crufty fork > of Bitcoin Core also isn't clear to me yet. > > Then there is the question of whether it makes sense to mix C and
Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] A new Bitcoin implementation integrated with Core Lightning
Hi alicexbt Thanks for the suggestion. I'll take a look at the branch. I'm personally pretty bullish on Lightning and Core Lightning is criminally underused. Plus it is more exciting (and hopefully will attract more contributors) to try something ambitious than just trim Core. I'll see if it is something the Core Lightning contributors might be interested in helping out on. I remember that Rusty said on a podcast that if he had another life he'd have liked to have worked on Core. This way he could potentially do both :) Thanks Michael -- Michael Folkson Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com Keybase: michaelfolkson PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3 --- Original Message --- On Sunday, January 15th, 2023 at 12:58, alicexbt wrote: > Hi Michael, > > If I were to fork bitcoin core and maintain an implementation, I wouldn't > integrate any lightning implementation with it. Instead remove some things > from bitcoin core and keep it simple. There is also scope for improving > privacy. Example: https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/issues/50 > > You might find the commits in this branch interesting if you are looking to > remove things from bitcoin core and maintain an implementation with no gui, > wallet, less RPCs etc. > > https://github.com/jeremyRubin/bitcoin/commits/delete-it-all > > > /dev/fd0 > floppy disc guy > > Sent with Proton Mail secure email. > > --- Original Message --- > On Sunday, January 15th, 2023 at 1:56 AM, Michael Folkson via Lightning-dev > lightning-...@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: > > > > > I tweeted this 0 back in November 2022. > > > > "With the btcd bugs and the analysis paralysis on a RBF policy option in > > Core increasingly thinking @BitcoinKnots and consensus compatible forks of > > Core are the future. Gonna chalk that one up to another thing @LukeDashjr > > was right about all along." > > > > A new bare bones Knots style Bitcoin implementation (in C++/C) integrated > > with Core Lightning was a long term idea I had (and presumably many others > > have had) but the dysfunction on the Bitcoin Core project this week (if > > anything it has been getting worse over time, not better) has made me start > > to take the idea more seriously. It is clear to me that the current way the > > Bitcoin Core project is being managed is not how I would like an open > > source project to be managed. Very little discussion is public anymore and > > decisions seem to be increasingly made behind closed doors or in private > > IRC channels (to the extent that decisions are made at all). Core Lightning > > seems to have the opposite problem. It is managed effectively in the open > > (admittedly with fewer contributors) but doesn't have the eyeballs or the > > usage that Bitcoin Core does. Regardless, selfishly I at some point would > > like a bare bones Bitcoin and Lightning implementation integrated in one > > codebase. The Bitcoin Core codeb ase has collected a lot of cruft over time and the ultra conservatism that is needed when treating (potential) consensus code seems to permeate into parts of the codebase that no one is using, definitely isn't consensus code and should probably just be removed. > > > > The libbitcoinkernel project was (is?) an attempt to extract the consensus > > engine out of Core but it seems like it won't achieve that as consensus is > > just too slippery a concept and Knots style consensus compatible codebase > > forks of Bitcoin Core seem to still the model. To what extent you can > > safely chop off this cruft and effectively maintain this less crufty fork > > of Bitcoin Core also isn't clear to me yet. > > > > Then there is the question of whether it makes sense to mix C and C++ code > > that people have different views on. C++ is obviously a superset of C but > > assuming this merging of Bitcoin Core and Core Lightning is/was the optimal > > final destination it surely would have been better if Core Lightning was > > written in the same language (i.e. with classes) as Bitcoin Core. > > > > I'm just floating the idea to (hopefully) hear from people who are much > > more familiar with the entirety of the Bitcoin Core and Core Lightning > > codebases. It would be an ambitious long term project but it would be nice > > to focus on some ambitious project(s) (even if just conceptually) for a > > while given (thankfully) there seems to be a lull in soft fork activation > > chaos. > > > > Thanks > > Michael > > > > -- > > Michael Folkson > > Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com > > Keybase: michaelfolkson > > PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3 ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] A new Bitcoin implementation integrated with Core Lightning
Hi Michael, have you seen Mako? It might at least be a good start for what you would like to achieve: https://github.com/chjj/mako Best, Fabian --- Original Message --- On Saturday, January 14th, 2023 at 9:26 PM, Michael Folkson via Lightning-dev wrote: > I tweeted this [0] back in November 2022. > > "With the btcd bugs and the analysis paralysis on a RBF policy option in Core > increasingly thinking @BitcoinKnots and consensus compatible forks of Core > are the future. Gonna chalk that one up to another thing @LukeDashjr was > right about all along." > > A new bare bones Knots style Bitcoin implementation (in C++/C) integrated > with Core Lightning was a long term idea I had (and presumably many others > have had) but the dysfunction on the Bitcoin Core project this week (if > anything it has been getting worse over time, not better) has made me start > to take the idea more seriously. It is clear to me that the current way the > Bitcoin Core project is being managed is not how I would like an open source > project to be managed. Very little discussion is public anymore and decisions > seem to be increasingly made behind closed doors or in private IRC channels > (to the extent that decisions are made at all). Core Lightning seems to have > the opposite problem. It is managed effectively in the open (admittedly with > fewer contributors) but doesn't have the eyeballs or the usage that Bitcoin > Core does. Regardless, selfishly I at some point would like a bare bones > Bitcoin and Lightning implementation integrated in one codebase. The Bitcoin > Core codebase has collected a lot of cruft over time and the ultra > conservatism that is needed when treating (potential) consensus code seems to > permeate into parts of the codebase that no one is using, definitely isn't > consensus code and should probably just be removed. > > The libbitcoinkernel project was (is?) an attempt to extract the consensus > engine out of Core but it seems like it won't achieve that as consensus is > just too slippery a concept and Knots style consensus compatible codebase > forks of Bitcoin Core seem to still the model. To what extent you can safely > chop off this cruft and effectively maintain this less crufty fork of Bitcoin > Core also isn't clear to me yet. > > Then there is the question of whether it makes sense to mix C and C++ code > that people have different views on. C++ is obviously a superset of C but > assuming this merging of Bitcoin Core and Core Lightning is/was the optimal > final destination it surely would have been better if Core Lightning was > written in the same language (i.e. with classes) as Bitcoin Core. > > I'm just floating the idea to (hopefully) hear from people who are much more > familiar with the entirety of the Bitcoin Core and Core Lightning codebases. > It would be an ambitious long term project but it would be nice to focus on > some ambitious project(s) (even if just conceptually) for a while given > (thankfully) there seems to be a lull in soft fork activation chaos. > > Thanks > Michael > > [0]: > https://twitter.com/michaelfolkson/status/1589220155006910464?s=20=GbPm7w5BqS7rS3kiVFTNcw > > -- > Michael Folkson > Email: michaelfolkson at [protonmail.com](http://protonmail.com/) > Keybase: michaelfolkson > PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] A new Bitcoin implementation integrated with Core Lightning
I saw it was announced, yes. The author is brilliant, he has now managed two alternative implementations of Core in two different languages :) The problem though and why I and many others think the Knots style fork of Core is the better option is because you avoid reimplementing consensus code in a different language. If you're ultra conservative about consensus code you either want to run Core in parallel with your alternative implementation to check they don't go out of consensus or you want to run the same consensus code as Core in a Knots like fork. Hence a Knots like fork of Core in C++ integrated with Core Lightning in C seems like the better option to me for serious running in production like use cases. -- Michael Folkson Email: michaelfolkson at [protonmail.com](http://protonmail.com/) Keybase: michaelfolkson PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3 --- Original Message --- On Saturday, January 14th, 2023 at 20:34, Fabian wrote: > Hi Michael, > > have you seen Mako? It might at least be a good start for what you would like > to achieve: https://github.com/chjj/mako > > Best, > Fabian > --- Original Message --- > On Saturday, January 14th, 2023 at 9:26 PM, Michael Folkson via Lightning-dev > wrote: > >> I tweeted this [0] back in November 2022. >> >> "With the btcd bugs and the analysis paralysis on a RBF policy option in >> Core increasingly thinking @BitcoinKnots and consensus compatible forks of >> Core are the future. Gonna chalk that one up to another thing @LukeDashjr >> was right about all along." >> >> A new bare bones Knots style Bitcoin implementation (in C++/C) integrated >> with Core Lightning was a long term idea I had (and presumably many others >> have had) but the dysfunction on the Bitcoin Core project this week (if >> anything it has been getting worse over time, not better) has made me start >> to take the idea more seriously. It is clear to me that the current way the >> Bitcoin Core project is being managed is not how I would like an open source >> project to be managed. Very little discussion is public anymore and >> decisions seem to be increasingly made behind closed doors or in private IRC >> channels (to the extent that decisions are made at all). Core Lightning >> seems to have the opposite problem. It is managed effectively in the open >> (admittedly with fewer contributors) but doesn't have the eyeballs or the >> usage that Bitcoin Core does. Regardless, selfishly I at some point would >> like a bare bones Bitcoin and Lightning implementation integrated in one >> codebase. The Bitcoin Core codebase has collected a lot of cruft over time >> and the ultra conservatism that is needed when treating (potential) >> consensus code seems to permeate into parts of the codebase that no one is >> using, definitely isn't consensus code and should probably just be removed. >> >> The libbitcoinkernel project was (is?) an attempt to extract the consensus >> engine out of Core but it seems like it won't achieve that as consensus is >> just too slippery a concept and Knots style consensus compatible codebase >> forks of Bitcoin Core seem to still the model. To what extent you can safely >> chop off this cruft and effectively maintain this less crufty fork of >> Bitcoin Core also isn't clear to me yet. >> >> Then there is the question of whether it makes sense to mix C and C++ code >> that people have different views on. C++ is obviously a superset of C but >> assuming this merging of Bitcoin Core and Core Lightning is/was the optimal >> final destination it surely would have been better if Core Lightning was >> written in the same language (i.e. with classes) as Bitcoin Core. >> >> I'm just floating the idea to (hopefully) hear from people who are much more >> familiar with the entirety of the Bitcoin Core and Core Lightning codebases. >> It would be an ambitious long term project but it would be nice to focus on >> some ambitious project(s) (even if just conceptually) for a while given >> (thankfully) there seems to be a lull in soft fork activation chaos. >> >> Thanks >> Michael >> >> [0]: >> https://twitter.com/michaelfolkson/status/1589220155006910464?s=20=GbPm7w5BqS7rS3kiVFTNcw >> >> -- >> Michael Folkson >> Email: michaelfolkson at [protonmail.com](http://protonmail.com/) >> Keybase: michaelfolkson >> PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
