Re: [Lightning-dev] bLIPs: A proposal for community-driven app layer and protocol extension standardization
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 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 > 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.: >>
Re: [Lightning-dev] bLIPs: A proposal for community-driven app layer and protocol extension standardization
> 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
Re: [Lightning-dev] bLIPs: A proposal for community-driven app layer and protocol extension standardization
hello René, I think the idea of having separate standards is good because we can keep the core spec mandatory and other things optional. Since the core spec, defined by the BOLTs, is mandatory, it's better if it's as small as possible, basically barely enough to allow peers to talk to each other and open a channel, then define what an HTLC is and the basic payment flow. All the rest is optional. The BOLTs themselves encourage experimentation by having TLVs, rules for optional and experimental message type numbers and so on. And then it doesn't make sense to put optional things in the BOLTs otherwise no one will be spec-compliant anymore and it will cause confusion. Some things, like splicing and dual-funded channels could be created as blips and after everybody had implemented them moved to the BOLTs, other things, like the podcast tipping protocol, cannot. Still, it is better to have a spec for the podcast tipping protocol than to not have, or to have it hidden somewhere. It makes it more open and easier for everyone. Ultimately I think dual-funded channels, trampoline routing and other lower level things should still be kept out of the BOLTs as long as they are optional. While things like splicing and blinded paths seem to be more like things that should enforced. This is my opinion, but I think it's good to have this clear distinction. Finally, a list of other things that deserve a spec so they are made standard and interoperable across wallets and services: 1. keysend 2. AMP 3. hosted channels 4. trampoline routing v1 5. trampoline routing v2 6. turbo channels 7. podcast tipping protocol 8. dual-funding 9. on-demand channels 10. sphinx chat messaging thing 11. private routing as done by immortan 12. alternative graph for unannounced channels as done by immortan 13. lnurl-withdraw 14. lnurl-pay 15. lnurl-channel 16. bitcoin-liquid lightning bridge 17. I thought I had more but apparently I forgot So we have to hunt these people down and make them submit specs. --- fiatjaf 2021-06-30 16:35 (GMT+02:00), "René Pickhardt via Lightning-dev" said: > 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 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
Re: [Lightning-dev] bLIPs: A proposal for community-driven app layer and protocol extension standardization
Hi Rene, Thank you for the feedback! Very interesting to look back at the same proposal from 2018, we clearly could have done a better job researching past attempts. I have two main comments: 1) not trying to introduce a new repo, the linked lightning-rfc branch [1] simply adds a new bLIPs folder in the existing repo (like you suggested as an option in 2018) 2) major difference between 2018 and now is one of scale (which is a great problem to have!). In 2018 the LN dev ecosystem was mostly ACINQ, Blockstream, and Lightning Labs and the minimalist BOLTs process worked well. At this point the broader ecosystem is significantly bigger than those three teams combined, and it seems the process should adjust to reflect the new environment. The main goal of the suggested change is simply to provide a home for emerging "best practices", especially those that require coordination amongst multiple groups. I think LNURL provides a good example of a "best practice" that has been spec'd out [2], is completely extra protocol so probably doesn't belong as a BOLT, but carries tension with it for new developers since it's been widely adopted yet not "officially supported". What do you think about that? Best, Ryan [1] https://github.com/ryanthegentry/lightning-rfc/blob/blip-0001/blips/blip-0001.mediawiki [2] https://github.com/fiatjaf/lnurl-rfc On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 9:35 AM René Pickhardt 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
Re: [Lightning-dev] bLIPs: A proposal for community-driven app layer and protocol extension standardization
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
Re: [Lightning-dev] bLIPs: A proposal for community-driven app layer and protocol extension standardization
Or just use BIPs instead of further fracturing...? On Jun 30, 2021 10:10 AM, Ryan Gentry via Lightning-dev 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
[Lightning-dev] bLIPs: A proposal for community-driven app layer and protocol extension standardization
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
Re: [Lightning-dev] Turbo channels spec?
> > - MUST NOT send `announcement_signatures` messages until `funding_locked` > has been sent and received AND the funding transaction has at least > six confirmations. > > So still compliant there? > Great, I hadn't spotted that one, so we're good on the `announcement_signatures` side. I'm wondering if `option_zeroconf` implies that we should set `min_depth = 0` in `accept_channel`, since that's the number of confirmations before we can send `funding_locked`. We need a signal that this channel uses zero-conf, and the two obvious choices are: - set `min_depth = 0` - use a `channel_type` that sets `option_zeroconf` I think the second option is better, this way we can keep a "normal" `min_depth` set and when we send `funding_locked`, we know that the channel is now perfectly safe to use (out of the zero-conf zone). Cheers, Bastien Le mer. 30 juin 2021 à 02:09, Rusty Russell a écrit : > Bastien TEINTURIER writes: > > Hi Rusty, > > > > On the eclair side, we instead send `funding_locked` as soon as we > > see the funding tx in the mempool. > > > > But I think your proposal would work as well. > > This would be backward compatible, I think. Eclair would send > `funding_locked`, which is perfectly legal, but a normal peer would > still wait for confirms before also sending `funding_locked`; it's > just that option_zeroconf_channels would mean it doesn't have to > wait for that before sending HTLCs? > > > We may want to defer sending `announcement_signatures` until > > after the funding tx has been confirmed? What `min_depth` should > > we use here? Should we keep a non-zero value in `accept_channel` > > or should it be zero? > > You can't send it before you know the channel_id, so it has to be at > least 1. Spec says: > > - MUST NOT send `announcement_signatures` messages until > `funding_locked` > has been sent and received AND the funding transaction has at least > six confirmations. > > So still compliant there? > > Cheers, > Rusty. > ___ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
