<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1qg5r4lja0e34twn6psh49qlrzj0k28dtxxw0k4fag6sarqprfm2s7nqm4r</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1qg5r4lja0e34twn6psh49qlrzj0k28dtxxw0k4fag6sarqprfm2s7nqm4r</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2022-05-03&#xA;📝 Original message:&#xA;Zman,&#xA;&#xA;I was not arguing for moving things from the edge, nor was I arguing to&#xA;make Taro a BOLT. Laolu is misinterpreting my message.&#xA;&#xA;I was explaining that the capabilities that would allow Taro to interact&#xA;with LN have no special relationship to Taro alone and should be designed&#xA;to accommodate any outside layer/network.&#xA;&#xA;I gave specific examples of requirements that LL is portraying as Taro&#xA;Layer design, that are really just new features for LN nodes that do not&#xA;need to be network/layer-specific:&#xA;&#xA; - Making LN nodes aware of assets on other networks&#xA; - Establishing commitments for (atomic) swapping for payments/routing&#xA; - Supporting the ability to exchange and advertise exchange rates for&#xA;asset pairs&#xA; - Supporting other multi-asset routes when considering routing paths,&#xA;bridging nodes with alternate assets&#xA;&#xA;I don&#39;t care whether this is framed as BOLT or BLIP content, as in the end&#xA;each implementation will do what it needs to stay relevant in the market. I&#xA;care that this is framed and designed correctly, so we aren&#39;t locked into&#xA;one specific outside layer. You could argue the degree to which the above&#xA;features need to exist in the network, and whether to restrict such&#xA;features to the &#34;edge,&#34; but my point is that an LN node that wants to be&#xA;aware of an outside network, and extra assets in addition to Bitcoin, will&#xA;need such features, and such features are not Taro-specific.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Good morning John, and Laolu,&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; &gt; &gt; but instead the requirement to add several feature concepts to LN that&#xA;&gt; &gt; &gt; would allow tokens to interact with LN nodes and LN routing:&#xA;&gt; &gt;&#xA;&gt; &gt; From this list of items, I gather that your vision is actually pretty&#xA;&gt; &gt; different from ours. Rather than update the core network to understand&#xA;&gt; the&#xA;&gt; &gt; existence of the various Taro assets, instead we plan on leaving the core&#xA;&gt; &gt; protocol essentially unchanged, with the addition of new TLV extensions&#xA;&gt; to&#xA;&gt; &gt; allow the edges to be aware of and interact w/ the Taro assets. As an&#xA;&gt; &gt; example, we wouldn&#39;t need to do anything like advertise exchange rates in&#xA;&gt; &gt; the core network over the existing gossip protocol (which doesn&#39;t seem&#xA;&gt; like&#xA;&gt; &gt; the best idea in any case given how quickly they can change and the&#xA;&gt; existing&#xA;&gt; &gt; challenges we have today in ensuring speedy update propagation).&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Adding on to this, the American Call Option problem that arises when using&#xA;&gt; H/PTLCs:&#xA;&gt; https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2018-December/001752.html&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; The above objection seems to be one reason for proposing multi-asset &#34;on&#xA;&gt; the edge&#34; rather than have it widely deployed in the published Lightning&#xA;&gt; Network.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Regards,&#xA;&gt; ZmnSCPxj&#xA;&gt;&#xA;-------------- next part --------------&#xA;An HTML attachment was scrubbed...&#xA;URL: &lt;http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20220503/d3b236c6/attachment-0001.html&gt;</html></oembed>