fiatjaf [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2021-09-12 📝 Original message: I think this is a good ...
📅 Original date posted:2021-09-12
📝 Original message:
I think this is a good idea. A very simple change that can improve
usability.
Anyone can already do this today if they want, by just shoving data into
DNS records and telling people to confirm from there, but it would be nice
if it was standardized in a bLIP[0] just so everybody does it in the same
way.
Additionally there could be the reverse link in which nodes publish their
domain names as their alias and that is confirmed with the DNS record. Then
we'll finally be able to identify and trust the payee pubkeys in invoices!
[0]: https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/pull/884
On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 8:02 PM Andy Schroder <info at andyschroder.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We have the <pubkey>@host format for defining a connection to a LN node.
>
> I'm wondering if it makes any sense to create DNS records that apply to LN
> nodes to serve this same information? For example:
>
> - example.com. IN LN ln.example.com.
> - Allows assigning an alternate host name for the ln node for a
> domain, like an mail server has an MX record
> - example.com. IN TXT "LNpubkey=ybRK9h6OYmB3I4VroZBQogIadciFTw"
> - Allows storing the pubkey for the LN node in a DNS record
>
>
> If one didn't know the LN node for example.com, they could query the LN
> and TXT records and then find the information and make a connection using
> the familiar ybRK9h6OYmB3I4VroZBQogIadciFTw at ln.example.com format. This
> may be of interest because if someone wants to open a channel in advance to
> a company's LN node because they know they will be receiving an invoice
> from them in the future, and they want open a channel directly in order to
> ensure a good route (and they want the channel to be fully confirmed/opened
> by the time they receive the invoice). This could be particularly useful
> when dealing with machines in the physical world where you want an easy way
> to make a connection and channel to with a human readable string that is
> printed on the machine, but don't even want to deal with QR codes or NFC
> (for example, your desktop computer likely doesn't have either of those
> capabilities).
>
> Right now, the host names associated with LN nodes that are found using
> the peer to peer gossip are more on the honor system as I understand it. If
> these records existed, one could also validate the information found using
> the peer to peer gossip protocol.
>
> I do realize that the DNS root servers are governed by a centralized
> entity, so this approach has it's flaws, but we could consider it sort of
> complimentary to the peer to peer gossip protocol. DNS does have a nice
> scaling property in that it is hierarchically distributed, so it may be
> more efficient long term than every user having a full view of the LN via
> the gossip protocol in order to find the information needed, especially
> when we can replace the DNS root servers with something that is under
> decentralized control.
>
> lnurl-rfc seems to be doing a good job at creating workflows for payers
> and payees. However, I'm not sure if a definition like I've suggested above
> fits better in lnurl-rfc or as part of a BOLT.
>
>
> Let me know of your thoughts,
>
> --
> Andy Schroder
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20210912/5baf424b/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:
I think this is a good idea. A very simple change that can improve
usability.
Anyone can already do this today if they want, by just shoving data into
DNS records and telling people to confirm from there, but it would be nice
if it was standardized in a bLIP[0] just so everybody does it in the same
way.
Additionally there could be the reverse link in which nodes publish their
domain names as their alias and that is confirmed with the DNS record. Then
we'll finally be able to identify and trust the payee pubkeys in invoices!
[0]: https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/pull/884
On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 8:02 PM Andy Schroder <info at andyschroder.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We have the <pubkey>@host format for defining a connection to a LN node.
>
> I'm wondering if it makes any sense to create DNS records that apply to LN
> nodes to serve this same information? For example:
>
> - example.com. IN LN ln.example.com.
> - Allows assigning an alternate host name for the ln node for a
> domain, like an mail server has an MX record
> - example.com. IN TXT "LNpubkey=ybRK9h6OYmB3I4VroZBQogIadciFTw"
> - Allows storing the pubkey for the LN node in a DNS record
>
>
> If one didn't know the LN node for example.com, they could query the LN
> and TXT records and then find the information and make a connection using
> the familiar ybRK9h6OYmB3I4VroZBQogIadciFTw at ln.example.com format. This
> may be of interest because if someone wants to open a channel in advance to
> a company's LN node because they know they will be receiving an invoice
> from them in the future, and they want open a channel directly in order to
> ensure a good route (and they want the channel to be fully confirmed/opened
> by the time they receive the invoice). This could be particularly useful
> when dealing with machines in the physical world where you want an easy way
> to make a connection and channel to with a human readable string that is
> printed on the machine, but don't even want to deal with QR codes or NFC
> (for example, your desktop computer likely doesn't have either of those
> capabilities).
>
> Right now, the host names associated with LN nodes that are found using
> the peer to peer gossip are more on the honor system as I understand it. If
> these records existed, one could also validate the information found using
> the peer to peer gossip protocol.
>
> I do realize that the DNS root servers are governed by a centralized
> entity, so this approach has it's flaws, but we could consider it sort of
> complimentary to the peer to peer gossip protocol. DNS does have a nice
> scaling property in that it is hierarchically distributed, so it may be
> more efficient long term than every user having a full view of the LN via
> the gossip protocol in order to find the information needed, especially
> when we can replace the DNS root servers with something that is under
> decentralized control.
>
> lnurl-rfc seems to be doing a good job at creating workflows for payers
> and payees. However, I'm not sure if a definition like I've suggested above
> fits better in lnurl-rfc or as part of a BOLT.
>
>
> Let me know of your thoughts,
>
> --
> Andy Schroder
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20210912/5baf424b/attachment.html>;