Re: [Lightning-dev] bLIPs: A proposal for community-driven app layer and protocol extension stand
If the BIPs can allow very small standards related to a small niche of Lightning usage, then I think they are the place for everything indeed. I'm convinced. Thinking about proposing the LNURL specs as BIPs now, but then I don't know if it will be weird for them to exist alone there, without the basis of the lightning technology to support them. I hope the BOLT authors investigate moving them there too so the other Lightning BIPs can add the BOLT BIPs as "Required". The only question to me is this: should each BOLT be a BIP? Or all BOLTs be mashed together as a single BIP? Then what happens when Taproot-based channels, PTLCs or Eltoo-based channels get implemented? They are added as new BIPs that inherit and modify the previous? I also went through https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/BIP-Process-wishlist and to me they seem to be all good proposals (specially the list of projects/services implementing the BIP). Except BIP versioning. I like that BIPs have meaningless numbers, just add another BIP and refer to it by a number. For that reason I also don't like prepending an "L" to Lightning-related BIPs (more so because some of these may be reused later in non-Lightning contexts, who knows?). Anyway I'm fine with anything. On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 4:32 PM Luke Dashjr wrote: > Yes, many systems doesn't really make sense. We can add editors and revise > the > BIP process as needed (BOLTs might prefer to use markdown?). Even aside > from > Lightning BIPs, there are several improvements that can be made, so it > makes > sense to address everything at once. > > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/BIP-Process-wishlist > > The BIP 2xx range has been set aside for Lightning years ago, and we can > do > similar things to help keep things organized within BIPs. Kalle suggested > maybe it'd be better to do BIP "L###" instead, and perhaps that would work > better if there's likely to be several sub-namespaces. > > Luke > > > On Friday 02 July 2021 12:02:28 Dan Gershony wrote: > > Hi, > > There will be many layer 2 (and probably layer 3) protocols (BOLT, RGB, > > Volts etc...) does it really make sense to merge them all into the BIPs > > system? > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 10:03 AM nathanael via Lightning-dev < > > > > lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > Michael Folkson wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > > > arent lightning improvements in the end bitcoin improvements too? > > > i am thinking of bips like the rfcs of the internet > > > > > > -- > > > nathanael > > > ___ > > > 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
Re: [Lightning-dev] bLIPs: A proposal for community-driven app layer and protocol extension stand
Yes, many systems doesn't really make sense. We can add editors and revise the BIP process as needed (BOLTs might prefer to use markdown?). Even aside from Lightning BIPs, there are several improvements that can be made, so it makes sense to address everything at once. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/BIP-Process-wishlist The BIP 2xx range has been set aside for Lightning years ago, and we can do similar things to help keep things organized within BIPs. Kalle suggested maybe it'd be better to do BIP "L###" instead, and perhaps that would work better if there's likely to be several sub-namespaces. Luke On Friday 02 July 2021 12:02:28 Dan Gershony wrote: > Hi, > There will be many layer 2 (and probably layer 3) protocols (BOLT, RGB, > Volts etc...) does it really make sense to merge them all into the BIPs > system? > > > On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 10:03 AM nathanael via Lightning-dev < > > lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > Michael Folkson wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > arent lightning improvements in the end bitcoin improvements too? > > i am thinking of bips like the rfcs of the internet > > > > -- > > nathanael > > ___ > > 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
Re: [Lightning-dev] bLIPs: A proposal for community-driven app layer and protocol extension stand
Hi, There will be many layer 2 (and probably layer 3) protocols (BOLT, RGB, Volts etc...) does it really make sense to merge them all into the BIPs system? On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 10:03 AM nathanael via Lightning-dev < lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Michael Folkson wrote: > > > 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. > > arent lightning improvements in the end bitcoin improvements too? > i am thinking of bips like the rfcs of the internet > > -- > nathanael > ___ > 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
Re: [Lightning-dev] bLIPs: A proposal for community-driven app layer and protocol extension stand
Michael Folkson wrote: > > 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. arent lightning improvements in the end bitcoin improvements too? i am thinking of bips like the rfcs of the internet -- nathanael ___ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
