Re: [Lightning-dev] bLIPs: A proposal for community-driven app layer and protocol extension standardization

2021-06-30 Thread Ariel Luaces
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

Re: [Lightning-dev] Turbo channels spec?

2021-06-30 Thread Bastien TEINTURIER
> > - 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.

Re: [Lightning-dev] bLIPs: A proposal for community-driven app layer and protocol extension standardization

2021-06-30 Thread René Pickhardt via Lightning-dev
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

Re: [Lightning-dev] bLIPs: A proposal for community-driven app layer and protocol extension standardization

2021-06-30 Thread Ryan Gentry via Lightning-dev
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

Re: [Lightning-dev] bLIPs: A proposal for community-driven app layer and protocol extension standardization

2021-06-30 Thread Luke Dashjr
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

[Lightning-dev] bLIPs: A proposal for community-driven app layer and protocol extension standardization

2021-06-30 Thread Ryan Gentry via Lightning-dev
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

Re: [Lightning-dev] bLIPs: A proposal for community-driven app layer and protocol extension standardization

2021-06-30 Thread fiatjaf
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

Re: [Lightning-dev] bLIPs: A proposal for community-driven app layer and protocol extension standardization

2021-06-30 Thread Olaoluwa Osuntokun
> 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