Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Lightning Specification Meeting 2023/01/30 #1053

Closed
7 of 28 tasks
t-bast opened this issue Jan 27, 2023 · 3 comments
Closed
7 of 28 tasks

Lightning Specification Meeting 2023/01/30 #1053

t-bast opened this issue Jan 27, 2023 · 3 comments

Comments

@t-bast
Copy link
Collaborator

t-bast commented Jan 27, 2023

The meeting will take place on Monday 2023/01/30 at 7pm UTC (5:30am Adelaide time) on Libera Chat IRC #lightning-dev. It is open to the public.

A video link is available for higher bandwidth communication: https://meet.jit.si/Lightning-Spec-Meeting

Recently Updated Proposals / Seeking Review

This section contains changes that have been opened or updated recently and need feedback from the meeting participants.

Stale Proposals

This section contains pending changes that may not need feedback from the meeting participants, unless someone explicitly asks for it during the meeting. These changes are usually waiting for implementation work to happen to drive more feedback.

Waiting for interop

This section contains changes that have been conceptually ACKed and are waiting for at least two implementations to fully interoperate.
They most likely don't need to be covered during the meeting, unless someone asks for updates.

Long Term Updates

This section contains long-term changes that need review, but require a substantial implementation effort.

@t-bast t-bast pinned this issue Jan 27, 2023
@carlaKC
Copy link
Contributor

carlaKC commented Jan 30, 2023

I'd like to record the meeting for the sake of generating a transcript from the video.

I'll ask again on the call, but wanted to give folks the opportunity to voice objections here as well.

@Roasbeef
Copy link
Collaborator

splicing:

  • update message race conditions
    • messages pre conf, valid afterwards
      • once a prior splice confirms, when do you stop sending the sigs for the old versions?
    • current proposal isn't atomic, as is never have HTLCs
    • issue w.r.t switch over, re when to start to use the new version of the commitment transaction
  • today have a TLV that sends all the sigs for all the versions
    • potential risk that gets too large, otherwise hit the message size limit
  • potential work around
    • use a distinct commit sig message for each active version
    • can then use a new identifier to reference which version of the commit tx

htlc max update issue:

  • potential fragmentation in network, can resolve however, future feature bits

resolving SCB issue:

  • not as easy as we thought, some other lingering edge cases

taproot:

blinded paths:

  • latest version of CLN has modifications to blinded paths, now merged in
    • had an issue of assuming that a route was actually to a dead end
    • distinction between route hint and blinded path, current version uses the same logic for both of them
    • if only one choice to have a path, then should just do anyway
  • mpp with blinded paths
    • logic to be updated to do the right thing: actually do the splitting
    • CLN working on a new pay plugin, to do fancy min-cost-flow stuff and revamp iti generally
  • eclair <-> CLN interop achieved!

offers:

  • new version for introp w/ CLN <-> eclair

dual funding:

  • CLN working on finalizing e2e tests

the "oakland protocol":

  • high level method to make probing more difficult
  • has anyone started to do it?
    • easy step: restrict max HTLC in flight to lower than total channel size
      • eclair: 45% of total capacity for given HTLC
      • LDK <-> CLN: introp re opening less than 100k, LDK doesn't have a floor

channel jamming:

  • initial draft spec PR up
  • had call last week, summary posted on the ML
  • if we go on the up front fee route, how far do we want to go along the "proof of forward" route
    • high fee node has high upfront fees, so why wouldn't they just take and forward?

@carlaKC
Copy link
Contributor

carlaKC commented Feb 3, 2023

Full transcript: bitcointranscripts/bitcointranscripts#229

@t-bast t-bast unpinned this issue Feb 10, 2023
@t-bast t-bast closed this as completed Feb 10, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants