Happy new year dear fellow Lightning Network Developers,
last month I have made a small observation why we probably should at most
progress EITHER with `negative fees` [1] OR `upfront fees` [2] but not with
BOTH as adding both features to the protocol would result in a potentially
lucrative
Dear Lisa and lightning developers,
thank you for your contribution and ideas to the problem of increasing
reliability to the payment deliver process by having balanced channels and
providing liquidity where necessary. This is at least how I understand your
intentions of the proposal. I will just
%20pairs.ipynb
>
> Thanks,
> Matt
>
> On 9/22/22 2:40 AM, René Pickhardt via Lightning-dev wrote:
> > Good morning fellow Lightning Developers,
> >
> > I am pleased to share my most recent research results [1] with you. They
> may (if at all) only have a
> > sm
Good morning fellow Lightning Developers,
I am pleased to share my most recent research results [1] with you. They
may (if at all) only have a small impact on protocol development /
specification but are actually mainly of concern to node operators and
LSPs. I still thought they may be relevant
Dear fellow Lightning Developers,
I was recently on an event where the visitors have been gifted 10k sats on
a custodial wallet. They could spend those sats via some web interface and
an NFC card. During the event I was contacted by several plebs who were
confused about one particular thing:
It
Dear Tony,
Thank you for putting emphasis on this. I was actually waiting for someone
to publicly exploit this.
> The reason this is possible is because [...] currently channel IDs are
> based on UTXO's. Scid aliases may be the biggest benefit here, but the use
> of `unknown_next_peer` ,
Dear fellow lightning developers,
please note my recent blog article titled "Price of Anarchy from selfish
routing strategies on the Lightning Network" [1] where we investigate how
the selfish behavior of nodes sending Bitcoin over the Lightning Network
may lead to higher drain on channels which
Dear fellow lightning developers,
last week I have started a new repository [0] where I maintain a python
package that can be used to test (and more importantly simulate) the
improvements to payment delivery that we have suggested over the last years
(c.f. [1][2][3]). I kindly invite you to check
Dear Carsten and fellow lightning developers,
thanks for going into such detail and discovering some of the minor
inaccuracies of my very rough piecewise linearization!
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 1:53 PM Carsten Otto wrote:
> 1.2) The Mission Control information provided by lnd [...]
> > I think
Dear Carsten, Martin and fellow lightning developers,
first of all thank you very much for independently verifying and
acknowledging my recent findings about the runtime of finding a pieceweise
linearized approximation to the min cost flow problem, for working on
integrating them into lnd-manageJ
Dear fellow Lightning Developers,
I am pleased (and a bit proud) to be able to inform you that I finally
found a quick way to approximate the slow minimum convex cost flow
computation. This is necessary for optimally reliable and cheap payment
flows [0] to deliver large multi part payments over
Dear Joost,
First I am happy that you also agree that reliability can and should be
expressed as a probability as discussed in [0].
The problem that you address is that of feature engineering[1]. Which
consists of two (or even more) steps:
1.) Feature selection: That means in payment delivery
Dear ZmnSCPxj,
thank you very much for this mail and in particular the openess to tinker
about a protocol change with respect to the transport layer of HTLCs /
PTLCs! I fully agree that we should think about adopting our onion
transport layer in a way that supports local payment splits and merges
Dear fellow lightning developers,
with a mixture of shock and disbelief I have been following the (semi)
public discussions for the last 6 weeks and the reaction of some companies
/ people that reached out to me. I have to say I am really surprised by the
amount of hesitation that - despite
Hi,
I am sorry to hear you had trouble with payment pathfinding. However if I
understand your suggestion correctly I think the proposed functionality
already exists in a very similar way in today's invoices with a mechanism
called fallback address. The main difference seems to be that the
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
Dear fellow Lightning Developers,
as you all probably know Andreas, Roasbeef and I are working on writing the
book "Mastering the Lightning Network" and I am happy to say that there has
been quite some progress over the last 18 months. In Particular it lead to
a diagram of the Lightning Network
aths are pre-filtered based on the probability of payment success,
> and then the final path is selected along the lines of the currently
> deployed fee rate/CLTV risk assessment?
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Elias
>
> On 17 Mar 2021, at 13:50, René Pickhardt via Lightning-dev wrote:
>
>
Dear fellow Lightning Network developers,
I am very pleased to share with you some research progress [0] with respect
to achieving better payment path finding and a better reliability of the
payment process.
TL;DR summary: In payment (multi)path finding use the (multi)paths with the
highest
Hey Ankit,
The lightning network sees the possession of a preimage as a proof of
payment. And I believe everyone agrees that a court should rule in favor of
A forcing E to deliver the good or reimburse A. The reason is that
possession of the preimage matching the signed payment hash from E is a
Hey everyone and of course good morning ZmnSCPxj (:
about 11 months ago I discovered a potential blackmail attack with HTLCs
after answering this question on stack exchange (c.f
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/89232/why-is-my-spendable-msat-much-lower-than-msatoshi-to-us/89235#89235).
Dear Subhra,
as discussed bilaterally and after clarification of your question the
situation is as follows:
Let us assume A and B have a channel in which A has 4 tokens and B has 6
tokens
Now A offers an HTLC with the amount of 2 tokens and B accepts (receives)
the offer then A and B both have
Hey Rusty,
I was very delighted to read your proposal. But I don't see how you prevent
message spam. If I understand you correctly you suggest that I can
communicate to any node along a path of peer connections (not necessarily
backed by payment channels but kind of only known through channel
Good Morning Cezary,
you might want to direct questions about understanding the lightning
network protocol like yours to https://bitcoin.stackexchanage.com as this
mailinglist is more devoted towards driving the development of the
protocol. Anyway here are the answers to your questions 2 and 3
Good morning ZmnSCPxj, and list,
the answer to your question is absolutely yes and we can can achieve this
actually in a very simple and elegant way.
Please find attached a clear and simple adaption of the algorithm described
from the paper for a general multipath payment and a small python code
Dear fellow Lightning Developers,
today my research paper (together with Mariusz Nowostawski) "*Imbalance
measure and proactive channel rebalancing algorithm for the Lightning
Network*" was published on arxiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.09555 The
LaTeX project as well as the code for the
Hey Ugam,
I like the very clearly communicated idea and the fact that we can do crazy
stuff with the filler of the onions. I have two concerns / questions:
1.) In pathfinding we actually try to make payments smaller (like moving to
AMP) instead of combining payments. I think it was shown several
Dear ZmnSCPxj and fellow lightning developers,
I want to point out two things and make a suggestion for a new gossip
message.
A good pruning heuristic is "channel capacity", which can be checked
> onchain (the value of the UTXO backing the channel is the channel capacity).
> It is good to keep
Dear Pierre-Marie and fellow lightning developers,
I really like that suggestion. In the context of JIT routing I was
tinkering about the same idea (is it possible for sending nodes to only
know a small part of the network - for example the friend of a friend
network - to save Hardware / gossip
Hey everyone,
as you know I am just a mathematician and not a cryptographer by training
who is interested and amazed by the Lightning Network Protocol. I joined
this open source effort pretty late (in the beginning of 2018) and tried to
catch up ever since. At that time reading the BOLTs (despite
Hey everyone,
during the spec meeting we have discussed intensively about dual funded
channels and potential game theory with the fees however I now believe that
we missed out another important crucial part which is the privacy of the
node providing liquidity.
While I have not seen a concrete
Hey everyone,
In this mail I introduce the Just in Time Routing schema (aka JIT Routing).
Its main idea is to mitigate the disadvantages from our current source
based routing (i.e.: guessing a route that will work in the sense that it
has enough liquidity in each channel) and make the routing
Dear Melvin,
I believe the scheme lightning: should only apply
* for payments in the form of bolt11 strings
* to identifiy nodes like lightning:node_id@ipaddr:port
* maybe to identify channels (look up the short_channel_id of the form of a
triple separated by the letterx.
Dear Melvin,
I believe the vocabulary is not consistent across implementations. For
example if you look at c lightning there is no such command `describegraph`
but there are the two commands `listnodes` and `listchannels` which should
give the same information. For both I have attached a sample
Hey Alex,
I think this is currently not being implemented. Also there is a
mailinglist particularly for issues related to c-lightning at:
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/c-lightning and of course issues like
this could also be asked in the bug tracker at:
Dear Melvin,
have you looked into the W3C Payment Group?
https://www.w3.org/TR/payment-request/ The entire field of semantic web
kind of originated from W3C and they are working on a recommendation for
browser vendors to enable a low level payment API.
Also there is LightningJoule that builds on
Dear Joao,
there are the people from BHB Networks (in Itally) working on colored coins
for Bitcoin and Lightning. The main contributor seems to be Alekos Filini.
As far as I understand there is quite some progress. You can find more
information in their spec repo at:
Hey CJP,
I am still not 100% through the SPHINX paper so it would be great if at
least another pair of eyes could lookt at this. However from the original
SPHINX paper I quote:
"Besides extracting the shared key, each mix has to be provided with
authentic and confidential routing information to
Hey Rusty,
No matter how we agree for the process I suggest to create a wiki page on
which we make it transparent and link to it from README.md.
The current process was new to me and I think one cannot expect newcomers
to read through the entire Mailinglist.
As soon as we have an agreement I
Hey Cezary,
sorry I misread your initial question. I thought you where referring to the
(probably bigger problem) of getting the commitment transaction to be mined
because RBF does not work. But if we assume that your channel partner
published an outdated commitment transaction which got mined
Hey List,
as this base AMP proposal seems pretty small I just started to write this
up to make a PR for BOLT04 and BOLT11. While doing my write up I realize
that there are smaller things that I would want to verify / double check
and propose with you.
## Verifying:
1.) I understand the receiving
Dear Rusty,
I am not getting this proposal (maybe I am lacking some technical basic
understandings) however I decided to ask more questions in order to
complete my onboarding process faster and hope this is fine.
My problem starts with the fact that I can't find the term "lightning probe
Good morning list,
in Adelaide I had a long conversation with another participant who
complained that slow payments and failing payments are still a major UX
issue for people that try to use the lightning network. While I believe
this is a very valid point and we might want to think heavily about
Hey Kulpreet,
thanks for this nice overview article! I have just today implemented a
first draft for the c-lightning autopilot [0]. I have implemented 4
heuristics to select nodes to which one could connect. On of those [1]
samples from the nodes that contribute to the high diameter. This
Hey lightning devs,
I was wondering if any of the companies here are members of W3C and if
anyone here could be member of the W3C Web Payments Working Group (c.f.:
https://www.w3.org/Payments/WG/ )? According to this mail
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2018-March.txt
, 2018, 6:45 AM René Pickhardt via Lightning-dev <
> lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Hey everyone,
>>
>> in the grand tradition of BIPs I propose that we also start to have our
>> own LIPs (Lightning Network Improvement proposals)
>>
>
Hey everyone,
in the grand tradition of BIPs I propose that we also start to have our own
LIPs (Lightning Network Improvement proposals)
I think they should be placed on the github.com/lightning account in a repo
called lips (or within the lightning rfc repo) until that will happen I
created a
Hey everyone,
I found a mail from 6 month ago on this list ( c.f.:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2017-December/000865.html
)
in which it was stated that there was a plan to include a splicing protocol
as BOLT 1.1 (On a side node I wonder weather it would make more
Sorry I sent this mail by accident only to Karan.
-- Forwarded message -
From: René Pickhardt
Date: Di., 27. März 2018 11:10
Subject: Re: [Lightning-dev] Opening channels with neighbors for
cost/connectivity benefit
To: Karan Verma
sical doublespend
> attack in which invalidated spends have to happen after the fork
> started, and the attacker just filters them from its fork.
>
> But as I said before, if we can't count on there not being a 51%
> attacker, then things are pretty much broken anyway :-)
>
> Ch
Hey everyone,
disclaimer: as mentioned in my other mail (
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2018-March/001065.html
) I am currently studying the revocation system of duplex micropayment
channels in detail but I am also pretty new to the topic. So I hope the
attack I am
Hey everyone,
disclaimer I am new here and have not a full understanding of the complete
specs yet - however since I decided to participate in lighting dev I will
just be brave and try to add my ideas on the problem jimpo posed. So even
in case by ideas are complete bs please just tell me in a
52 matches
Mail list logo