📅 Original date posted:2021-06-30 📝 Original message: Hi ...

2023-06-09T12:40:23Z

In reply to nevent1q…5kl6
_________________________

📅 Original date posted:2021-06-30
📝 Original message:
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 <r.pickhardt at googlemail.com>
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 at 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>>
>
>
> --
> https://www.rene-pickhardt.de
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20210630/9934ead9/attachment.html>;

📅 Original date posted:2021-06-30 📝 Original message: Hi ...

2023-06-09T12:40:22Z

In reply to nevent1q…qyah
_________________________

📅 Original date posted:2021-06-30
📝 Original message:
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20210630/ed2d0adc/attachment.html>;

Nostr notes by

📅 Original date posted:2021-06-30 📝 Original message: Hi ...

📅 Original date posted:2021-06-30 📝 Original message: Hi ...