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 2024/03/25 #1150

Closed
9 of 21 tasks
t-bast opened this issue Mar 20, 2024 · 2 comments
Closed
9 of 21 tasks

Lightning Specification Meeting 2024/03/25 #1150

t-bast opened this issue Mar 20, 2024 · 2 comments

Comments

@t-bast
Copy link
Collaborator

t-bast commented Mar 20, 2024

The meeting will take place on Monday 2024/03/25 at 7pm UTC (5:30am Adelaide time) on Libera Chat IRC #lightning-dev. It is open to the public.

⚠️ Some countries are switching to DST in the coming weeks, be careful with the meeting time!

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 Mar 20, 2024
@Roasbeef
Copy link
Collaborator

rbf coop close RBF:

  • question of if the sequence should be allowed to vary?
    • may confuse implementations, as before the sequence on coop close was static (non rbf)
    • also if the same value, then things are uniform everywhere else
  • options:
    • leave the field, restrict value
    • don't change
    • remove the field, repurpose bytes
  • proposal:
    • change the fields to: channel id, fees, lock time

liquidity adds:

  • ppl moving forward w/ version w/o any enforcement at all
  • current version as a funding weight:
    • if you don't know the amt, or the coin distribution you have, then you can't predict the fees ahead of time, as the current proposal has the funder overpay on fees slightly
    • how to set the value?
      • if you set one funding weight for all the amts, you'll pay for all the on chain fees
      • or you need to make sure that your UTXO set matches the amt you're offering
      • or do fixed amt ads
        • could also do ranges as well
    • add more to the init message?
  • final negotiation upon connection:
    • uses extra TLVS to negotiate the final details of the proposal
    • node ann: advertises ranges, you pay X for Y BTC
    • init: you connect and ask for a specific amt, then you answer back with the specific amt, I reply with the node ann

onion messaging scid+node key look up:

  • can help save space, but also for nodes w/o a full channel graph
  • mainly for the entrypoint of the graph

onion messaging paper:

async payments:

taproot chans:

  • eclair continuing interop, making more progress, able to open channels
  • @Roasbeef to update the taproot PR to add the nonce information

gossip 1.5:

  • splitting disable bit into 3 bits? cc @ellemouton
    • chan perm gone (closed)
    • chan disabled peer gone (cannot go either direction)
    • chan disabled unidirectional
      * can split the current bit vector, or otherwise redefine it to implement the above
    • also room to have the splice incoming bit as well
    • generally part of nodes sending out an update on channel close

peer backup:

  • lnd has PR towards now, nearly done, then can start on interop

stfu:

  • active work to add the message to un-sftu a PR

trampoline:

  • rn needs recipient supporting trampoline, with blinded paths, only requires introduction point supporting it
  • if this is the case, then maybe makes sense to only support the blinded paths version

@t-bast t-bast unpinned this issue Apr 10, 2024
@t-bast t-bast closed this as completed Apr 10, 2024
@carlaKC
Copy link
Contributor

carlaKC commented Apr 12, 2024

Transcript: bitcointranscripts/bitcointranscripts#463, recording borked out a bit so it's partial.

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