Re: [Lightning-dev] Removing lnd's source code from the Lightning specs repository

[ZmnSCPxj via Lightning-dev]

Good morning again list,

>
> > We could use an identicon, we do that with the lightningnetwork repository. 
> > An official logo is probably better - give the project a real symbol.
>
> I attached an SVG file I have been working on for some time, for the 
> amusement of all.
>
> It is unfortunately not square, and is very very simple, as well.

The icon attached in the previous email was visually inspired by this: 
https://game-icons.net/1x1/sbed/electric.html

However, the icon attached in the previous email is created solely by me 
without any code from the above link; I created a right triangle, made two 
corners round, copied it and rotated 180 degrees, then built the Lightning 
symbol out of them.
I hereby release the icon in the previous email under CC0.

An alternative which looks more "networky" is: 
https://game-icons.net/1x1/willdabeast/chain-lightning.html
A slight modification of removing the outgoing lightning strike from the 
leftmost person and adding a lightning strike between the leftmost and 
rightmost person would certainly imply "network" of "lightning" users, to me.

On the other hand, a simple Lightning symbol like in the previous email does 
have its cachet.
In particular, this simple symbol allows for the possibility of third parties 
to use as basis for their own logo, due to the base logo being very clean and 
lacking visual busyness.
For instance, an implementation may create their own logo based on some 
modification of this base logo, just as its code might implement the BOLT spec 
but add its own modifications on top of the BOLT spec.

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj

___
Lightning-dev mailing list
Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev

Re: [Lightning-dev] Removing lnd's source code from the Lightning specs repository

[ZmnSCPxj via Lightning-dev]

Good morning list,

> We could use an identicon, we do that with the lightningnetwork repository. 
> An official logo is probably better - give the project a real symbol.

I attached an SVG file I have been working on for some time, for the amusement 
of all.

It is unfortunately not square, and is very very simple, as well.

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj

>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 10:37 PM Olaoluwa Osuntokun  wrote:
>
> > Oh, also there's currently this sort of placeholder logo from waaay back
> > that's used as the org's avatar/image. Perhaps it's time we roll an
> > "official" logo/avatar? Otherwise we can just switch over the randomly
> > generated blocks thingy that Github uses when an account/org has no
> > avatar.  
> >
> > -- Laolu
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 7:34 PM Olaoluwa Osuntokun  wrote:
> >
> > > Circling back to close the loop here:
> > >
> > >   * The new Github org (https://github.com/lightning) now exists, and all 
> > > the
> > >     major implementation maintainers have been added to the organization 
> > > as
> > >     admins. 
> > >
> > >   * A new blips repo (https://github.com/lightning/blips) has been 
> > > created to
> > >     continue the PR that was originally started in the lightning-rfc 
> > > repo.  
> > >
> > >   * The old lightning-rfc repo has been moved over, and been renamed to 
> > > "bolts"
> > >     (https://github.com/lightning/bolts -- should it be all caps? )
> > >
> > > Thanks to all that participated in the discussion (particularly in 
> > > meatspace
> > > during the recent protocol dev meetup!), happy we were able to resolve 
> > > things
> > > and begin the next chapter in the evolution of the Lightning protocol! 
> > >
> > > -- Laolu
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 1:49 AM Fabrice Drouin  
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 at 21:57, Olaoluwa Osuntokun  
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > I don't remember that but if you're referring to c-lightning it was
> > > > the first lightning implementation, and the only one for a while, so
> > > > in a way it was a "reference" at the time ?
> > > > Or it could have been a reference to their policy of "implementing the
> > > > spec, all the spec and nothing but the spec"  ?
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, work on c-lightning then eclair then lnd all began a long time
> > > > before the BOLTs process was implemented, and we all set up repos,
> > > > accounts...
> > > > I agree that we all inherited things  from the "pre-BOLTS" era and
> > > > changing them will create some friction but I still believe it should
> > > > be done. You also mentioned potential admin rights issues on the
> > > > current specs repos which would be solved by moving them to a new
> > > > clean repo.
> > > >
> > > > > 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, and would be 
> > > > > happy
> > > > > to donate it to the community, or we could create a new org like
> > > > > "lightning-specs" or something similar.
> > > >
> > > > Sounds great! github.com/lightning is nice (and I like Damian's idea
> > > > of using github.com/lightning/bolts) and seems to please everyone so
> > > > it looks that we have a plan!
> > > >
> > > > Fabrice
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Removing lnd's source code from the Lightning specs repository

[Harsha Goli]

We could use an identicon, we do that with the lightningnetwork repository.
An official logo is probably better - give the project a real symbol.

On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 10:37 PM Olaoluwa Osuntokun 
wrote:

> Oh, also there's currently this sort of placeholder logo from waaay back
> that's used as the org's avatar/image. Perhaps it's time we roll an
> "official" logo/avatar? Otherwise we can just switch over the randomly
> generated blocks thingy that Github uses when an account/org has no
> avatar.
>
> -- Laolu
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 7:34 PM Olaoluwa Osuntokun 
> wrote:
>
>> Circling back to close the loop here:
>>
>>   * The new Github org (https://github.com/lightning) now exists, and
>> all the
>> major implementation maintainers have been added to the organization
>> as
>> admins.
>>
>>   * A new blips repo (https://github.com/lightning/blips) has been
>> created to
>> continue the PR that was originally started in the lightning-rfc
>> repo.
>>
>>   * The old lightning-rfc repo has been moved over, and been renamed to
>> "bolts"
>> (https://github.com/lightning/bolts -- should it be all caps? )
>>
>> Thanks to all that participated in the discussion (particularly in
>> meatspace
>> during the recent protocol dev meetup!), happy we were able to resolve
>> things
>> and begin the next chapter in the evolution of the Lightning protocol!
>>
>> -- Laolu
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 1:49 AM Fabrice Drouin 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 at 21:57, Olaoluwa Osuntokun 
>>> wrote:
>>> > 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.
>>>
>>> I don't remember that but if you're referring to c-lightning it was
>>> the first lightning implementation, and the only one for a while, so
>>> in a way it was a "reference" at the time ?
>>> Or it could have been a reference to their policy of "implementing the
>>> spec, all the spec and nothing but the spec"  ?
>>>
>>> > 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.
>>>
>>> Yes, work on c-lightning then eclair then lnd all began a long time
>>> before the BOLTs process was implemented, and we all set up repos,
>>> accounts...
>>> I agree that we all inherited things  from the "pre-BOLTS" era and
>>> changing them will create some friction but I still believe it should
>>> be done. You also mentioned potential admin rights issues on the
>>> current specs repos which would be solved by moving them to a new
>>> clean repo.
>>>
>>> > 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, and would be
>>> happy
>>> > to donate it to the community, or we could create a new org like
>>> > "lightning-specs" or something similar.
>>>
>>> Sounds great! github.com/lightning is nice (and I like Damian's idea
>>> of using github.com/lightning/bolts) and seems to please everyone so
>>> it looks that we have a plan!
>>>
>>> Fabrice
>>>
>> ___
> 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] Removing lnd's source code from the Lightning specs repository

[Olaoluwa Osuntokun]

Oh, also there's currently this sort of placeholder logo from waaay back
that's used as the org's avatar/image. Perhaps it's time we roll an
"official" logo/avatar? Otherwise we can just switch over the randomly
generated blocks thingy that Github uses when an account/org has no
avatar.

-- Laolu

On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 7:34 PM Olaoluwa Osuntokun  wrote:

> Circling back to close the loop here:
>
>   * The new Github org (https://github.com/lightning) now exists, and all
> the
> major implementation maintainers have been added to the organization as
> admins.
>
>   * A new blips repo (https://github.com/lightning/blips) has been
> created to
> continue the PR that was originally started in the lightning-rfc
> repo.
>
>   * The old lightning-rfc repo has been moved over, and been renamed to
> "bolts"
> (https://github.com/lightning/bolts -- should it be all caps? )
>
> Thanks to all that participated in the discussion (particularly in
> meatspace
> during the recent protocol dev meetup!), happy we were able to resolve
> things
> and begin the next chapter in the evolution of the Lightning protocol!
>
> -- Laolu
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 1:49 AM Fabrice Drouin 
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 at 21:57, Olaoluwa Osuntokun 
>> wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>> I don't remember that but if you're referring to c-lightning it was
>> the first lightning implementation, and the only one for a while, so
>> in a way it was a "reference" at the time ?
>> Or it could have been a reference to their policy of "implementing the
>> spec, all the spec and nothing but the spec"  ?
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Yes, work on c-lightning then eclair then lnd all began a long time
>> before the BOLTs process was implemented, and we all set up repos,
>> accounts...
>> I agree that we all inherited things  from the "pre-BOLTS" era and
>> changing them will create some friction but I still believe it should
>> be done. You also mentioned potential admin rights issues on the
>> current specs repos which would be solved by moving them to a new
>> clean repo.
>>
>> > 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, and would be
>> happy
>> > to donate it to the community, or we could create a new org like
>> > "lightning-specs" or something similar.
>>
>> Sounds great! github.com/lightning is nice (and I like Damian's idea
>> of using github.com/lightning/bolts) and seems to please everyone so
>> it looks that we have a plan!
>>
>> Fabrice
>>
>
___
Lightning-dev mailing list
Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev

Re: [Lightning-dev] Removing lnd's source code from the Lightning specs repository

[Olaoluwa Osuntokun]

Circling back to close the loop here:

  * The new Github org (https://github.com/lightning) now exists, and all
the
major implementation maintainers have been added to the organization as
admins.

  * A new blips repo (https://github.com/lightning/blips) has been created
to
continue the PR that was originally started in the lightning-rfc
repo.

  * The old lightning-rfc repo has been moved over, and been renamed to
"bolts"
(https://github.com/lightning/bolts -- should it be all caps? )

Thanks to all that participated in the discussion (particularly in meatspace
during the recent protocol dev meetup!), happy we were able to resolve
things
and begin the next chapter in the evolution of the Lightning protocol!

-- Laolu


On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 1:49 AM Fabrice Drouin 
wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 at 21:57, Olaoluwa Osuntokun 
> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I don't remember that but if you're referring to c-lightning it was
> the first lightning implementation, and the only one for a while, so
> in a way it was a "reference" at the time ?
> Or it could have been a reference to their policy of "implementing the
> spec, all the spec and nothing but the spec"  ?
>
> > 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.
>
> Yes, work on c-lightning then eclair then lnd all began a long time
> before the BOLTs process was implemented, and we all set up repos,
> accounts...
> I agree that we all inherited things  from the "pre-BOLTS" era and
> changing them will create some friction but I still believe it should
> be done. You also mentioned potential admin rights issues on the
> current specs repos which would be solved by moving them to a new
> clean repo.
>
> > 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, and would be
> happy
> > to donate it to the community, or we could create a new org like
> > "lightning-specs" or something similar.
>
> Sounds great! github.com/lightning is nice (and I like Damian's idea
> of using github.com/lightning/bolts) and seems to please everyone so
> it looks that we have a plan!
>
> Fabrice
>
___
Lightning-dev mailing list
Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev

Re: [Lightning-dev] Removing lnd's source code from the Lightning specs repository

[Fabrice Drouin]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 at 21:57, Olaoluwa Osuntokun  wrote:
> 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.

I don't remember that but if you're referring to c-lightning it was
the first lightning implementation, and the only one for a while, so
in a way it was a "reference" at the time ?
Or it could have been a reference to their policy of "implementing the
spec, all the spec and nothing but the spec"  ?

> 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.

Yes, work on c-lightning then eclair then lnd all began a long time
before the BOLTs process was implemented, and we all set up repos,
accounts...
I agree that we all inherited things  from the "pre-BOLTS" era and
changing them will create some friction but I still believe it should
be done. You also mentioned potential admin rights issues on the
current specs repos which would be solved by moving them to a new
clean repo.

> 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, and would be happy
> to donate it to the community, or we could create a new org like
> "lightning-specs" or something similar.

Sounds great! github.com/lightning is nice (and I like Damian's idea
of using github.com/lightning/bolts) and seems to please everyone so
it looks that we have a plan!

Fabrice
___
Lightning-dev mailing list
Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev

Re: [Lightning-dev] Removing lnd's source code from the Lightning specs repository

[Matt Corallo]

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 
.  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/  
(and moved to
 > 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 , 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

Re: [Lightning-dev] Removing lnd's source code from the Lightning specs repository

[lisa neigut]

Love the idea of moving the specs etc to github.com/lightning, thanks so
much for generously offering to donate this Laolu. Strong ACK from me.

Given how difficult the existing org is wrt ownership etc, moving to a new
one makes a lot of sense to me.

Thanks Fabrice for bringing this up so we could discuss it and get a better
understanding of the difficulties with the existing situation.

- nifty

On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 00:48 Damian Mee  wrote:

> While I don't partake in the conversations too often, I just want to say I
> strongly support Olaoluwa suggestion.  AFAIAA there's a lot of automations,
> dependencies, dockerfiles, or direct links to files that rely on the
> location of lnd github repo, and I'm sure not all of it would be able to
> handle Github redirect gracefully.  While accessing spec is mostly a
> human/browser activity, where dealing with redirects is much easier.
>
> Plus, github.com/lightning/spec, github.com/lightning/bolts, and/or
> github.com/lightning/rfc would all be trivial to remember, and quick to
> type.
>
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 2:57 PM 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.  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/ (and moved to
>> > 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, 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?
>>
>> -- Laolu
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 5:25 PM Fabrice Drouin 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> When you navigate to https://github.com/lightningnetwork/ you find
>>> - the Lightning Network white paper
>>> - the Lightning Network specifications
>>> - and ... the source code for lnd!
>>>
>>> This has been an anomaly for years, which has created some confusion
>>> between Lightning the open-source protocol and Lightning Labs, one of
>>> the companies specifying and implementing this protocol, but we didn't
>>> do anything about it.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>> They obviously did some real work there, and seem 

Re: [Lightning-dev] Removing lnd's source code from the Lightning specs repository

[Damian Mee]

While I don't partake in the conversations too often, I just want to say I
strongly support Olaoluwa suggestion.  AFAIAA there's a lot of automations,
dependencies, dockerfiles, or direct links to files that rely on the
location of lnd github repo, and I'm sure not all of it would be able to
handle Github redirect gracefully.  While accessing spec is mostly a
human/browser activity, where dealing with redirects is much easier.

Plus, github.com/lightning/spec, github.com/lightning/bolts, and/or
github.com/lightning/rfc would all be trivial to remember, and quick to
type.

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 2:57 PM 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.  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/ (and moved to
> > 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, 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?
>
> -- Laolu
>
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 5:25 PM Fabrice Drouin 
> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> When you navigate to https://github.com/lightningnetwork/ you find
>> - the Lightning Network white paper
>> - the Lightning Network specifications
>> - and ... the source code for lnd!
>>
>> This has been an anomaly for years, which has created some confusion
>> between Lightning the open-source protocol and Lightning Labs, one of
>> the companies specifying and implementing this protocol, but we didn't
>> do anything about it.
>>
>> 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.
>> They obviously did some real work there, and seem to imply that their
>> report was vetted by Open Node and Lightning Labs.
>>
>> Yet in the first version that they published you’ll find this:
>>
>> "Lightning Labs, founded in 2016, has developed the reference client
>> for the Lightning Network called Lightning Network Daemon (LND)
>> They also maintain the network standards documents (BOLTs)
>> repository."
>>
>> They changed it because we told them that it was wrong, but the fact
>> that in 2021 people who took time do do proper research, interviews,
>> ... can still misunderstand that badly how the

Re: [Lightning-dev] Removing lnd's source code from the Lightning specs repository

[Olaoluwa Osuntokun]

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.  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/ (and moved to
> 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, 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?

-- Laolu

On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 5:25 PM Fabrice Drouin 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> When you navigate to https://github.com/lightningnetwork/ you find
> - the Lightning Network white paper
> - the Lightning Network specifications
> - and ... the source code for lnd!
>
> This has been an anomaly for years, which has created some confusion
> between Lightning the open-source protocol and Lightning Labs, one of
> the companies specifying and implementing this protocol, but we didn't
> do anything about it.
>
> 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.
> They obviously did some real work there, and seem to imply that their
> report was vetted by Open Node and Lightning Labs.
>
> Yet in the first version that they published you’ll find this:
>
> "Lightning Labs, founded in 2016, has developed the reference client
> for the Lightning Network called Lightning Network Daemon (LND)
> They also maintain the network standards documents (BOLTs)
> repository."
>
> They changed it because we told them that it was wrong, but the fact
> that in 2021 people who took time do do proper research, interviews,
> ... can still misunderstand that badly how the Lightning developers
> community works means that we ourselves badly underestimated how
> confusing mixing the open-source specs for Lightning and the source
> code for one of its implementations can be.
>
> To be clear, I'm not blaming Arcane Research that much for thinking
> that an implementation of an open-source protocol that is hosted with
> the white paper and specs for that protocol is a "reference"
> implementation, and thinking that since Lightning Labs maintains lnd
> then they probably maintain the other stuff too. The problem is how
> that information is published.
>
> So I'm proposing that lnd's source code be removed from
> https://github.com/lightningnetwork/ (and moved to
> https://github.com/lightninglabs for example, with the rest of their
> Lightning to

Re: [Lightning-dev] Removing lnd's source code from the Lightning specs repository

[Fabrice Drouin]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 at 01:14, Martin Habovštiak
 wrote:
>
> I can confirm I moved a repository few months ago and all links kept working 
> fine.
>

Yes, github makes it really easy, and you keep your issues, PRs,
stars, .. depending on your dev/packaging you may need to rename
packages (something java/scala/... devs have to do from time to time)
but it's also very simple.

The issue here is not technical.

Fabrice
___
Lightning-dev mailing list
Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev

Re: [Lightning-dev] Removing lnd's source code from the Lightning specs repository

[Martin Habovštiak]

I can confirm I moved a repository few months ago and all links kept
working fine.

On Mon, Oct 11, 2021, 20:58 Matt Corallo  wrote:

>
>
> On 10/11/21 05:29, Bryan Bishop wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 12:25 AM Andrés G. Aragoneses  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > Completely agree with this. How to move this forward? Set up a vote?
> What would be the reasoning
> > for not moving it?
> >
> >
> > One consideration is broken links, which can be solved by a soft note in
> a README somewhere.
> >
> > - Bryan
> > https://twitter.com/kanzure 
>
> I believe the Github "move repository" feature makes all old links
> auto-redirects, so I'd hope this
> wouldn't happen. This information is at least a few years old, however.
>
> 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

Re: [Lightning-dev] Removing lnd's source code from the Lightning specs repository

[Matt Corallo]

On 10/11/21 05:29, Bryan Bishop wrote:
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 12:25 AM Andrés G. Aragoneses mailto:kno...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:


Completely agree with this. How to move this forward? Set up a vote? What 
would be the reasoning
for not moving it?


One consideration is broken links, which can be solved by a soft note in a 
README somewhere.

- Bryan
https://twitter.com/kanzure 


I believe the Github "move repository" feature makes all old links auto-redirects, so I'd hope this 
wouldn't happen. This information is at least a few years old, however.


Matt
___
Lightning-dev mailing list
Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev

Re: [Lightning-dev] Removing lnd's source code from the Lightning specs repository

[Bryan Bishop]

On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 12:25 AM Andrés G. Aragoneses 
wrote:

> Completely agree with this. How to move this forward? Set up a vote? What
> would be the reasoning for not moving it?
>

One consideration is broken links, which can be solved by a soft note in a
README somewhere.

- Bryan
https://twitter.com/kanzure
___
Lightning-dev mailing list
Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev

Re: [Lightning-dev] Removing lnd's source code from the Lightning specs repository

[Andrés G . Aragoneses]

Completely agree with this. How to move this forward? Set up a vote? What
would be the reasoning for not moving it?

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 23:25, Fabrice Drouin  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> When you navigate to https://github.com/lightningnetwork/ you find
> - the Lightning Network white paper
> - the Lightning Network specifications
> - and ... the source code for lnd!
>
> This has been an anomaly for years, which has created some confusion
> between Lightning the open-source protocol and Lightning Labs, one of
> the companies specifying and implementing this protocol, but we didn't
> do anything about it.
>
> 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.
> They obviously did some real work there, and seem to imply that their
> report was vetted by Open Node and Lightning Labs.
>
> Yet in the first version that they published you’ll find this:
>
> "Lightning Labs, founded in 2016, has developed the reference client
> for the Lightning Network called Lightning Network Daemon (LND)
> They also maintain the network standards documents (BOLTs)
> repository."
>
> They changed it because we told them that it was wrong, but the fact
> that in 2021 people who took time do do proper research, interviews,
> ... can still misunderstand that badly how the Lightning developers
> community works means that we ourselves badly underestimated how
> confusing mixing the open-source specs for Lightning and the source
> code for one of its implementations can be.
>
> To be clear, I'm not blaming Arcane Research that much for thinking
> that an implementation of an open-source protocol that is hosted with
> the white paper and specs for that protocol is a "reference"
> implementation, and thinking that since Lightning Labs maintains lnd
> then they probably maintain the other stuff too. The problem is how
> that information is published.
>
> So I'm proposing that lnd's source code be removed from
> https://github.com/lightningnetwork/ (and moved to
> https://github.com/lightninglabs for example, with the rest of their
> Lightning tools, but it's up to Lightning Labs).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Fabrice
> ___
> 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] Removing lnd's source code from the Lightning specs repository

[Fabrice Drouin]

Hello,

When you navigate to https://github.com/lightningnetwork/ you find
- the Lightning Network white paper
- the Lightning Network specifications
- and ... the source code for lnd!

This has been an anomaly for years, which has created some confusion
between Lightning the open-source protocol and Lightning Labs, one of
the companies specifying and implementing this protocol, but we didn't
do anything about it.

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.
They obviously did some real work there, and seem to imply that their
report was vetted by Open Node and Lightning Labs.

Yet in the first version that they published you’ll find this:

"Lightning Labs, founded in 2016, has developed the reference client
for the Lightning Network called Lightning Network Daemon (LND)
They also maintain the network standards documents (BOLTs)
repository."

They changed it because we told them that it was wrong, but the fact
that in 2021 people who took time do do proper research, interviews,
... can still misunderstand that badly how the Lightning developers
community works means that we ourselves badly underestimated how
confusing mixing the open-source specs for Lightning and the source
code for one of its implementations can be.

To be clear, I'm not blaming Arcane Research that much for thinking
that an implementation of an open-source protocol that is hosted with
the white paper and specs for that protocol is a "reference"
implementation, and thinking that since Lightning Labs maintains lnd
then they probably maintain the other stuff too. The problem is how
that information is published.

So I'm proposing that lnd's source code be removed from
https://github.com/lightningnetwork/ (and moved to
https://github.com/lightninglabs for example, with the rest of their
Lightning tools, but it's up to Lightning Labs).

Thanks,

Fabrice
___
Lightning-dev mailing list
Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev