Vincenzo Palazzo [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2023-04-30 🗒️ Summary of this message: Vincent ...
📅 Original date posted:2023-04-30
🗒️ Summary of this message: Vincent discusses the decoupling of CLN from the block source, plans to work on Nakamoto, and the need for a unified approach to fee calculation.
📝 Original message:
Hi Michael and Lisa,
> Hi Michael,
>
> CLN as implemented is currently nicely decoupled from the block source; as
> a project we assume that the node runner will choose a block backend that
> fits their self-sovereignty goals.
>
> This provides us with a nice separation of concerns. The block source is
> responsible for ensuring that only consensus valid data is delivered to the
> node, which in turn allows us to focus on processing and reacting to that
> data, as necessary.
Let me just mention that [1] I have been working on a plugin
that allows experimentation with different types of Bitcoin Core
node alternatives (including core too), and it also supports BIP 157
with nakamoto [2].
In the upcoming months, I plan to allocate some time to work
directly on Nakamoto.
> There’s probably a real opportunity to “comingle” the peering of LN gossip
> + block data networks, this has been suggested a few times but never
> seriously pursued from the LN side. Having the peering functions of
> bitcoin-core broken out into a more composable/reusable piece may be a good
> first step here, and as a project would largely be on the bitcoin core
> side. Maybe this work is already in progress? I havent been keeping up with
> developments there.
A missing piece at the moment is a unified approach to fee calculation.
This logic is critical for Lightning nodes, so if we don't have a uniform
way of estimating fees, it could lead to several issues.
P.S: The fee estimation problem may have already been solved by Neutrino,
but I'm not aware of it.
[1] https://github.com/coffee-tools/folgore
[2] https://github.com/cloudhead/nakamoto
Cheers!
Vincent.
🗒️ Summary of this message: Vincent discusses the decoupling of CLN from the block source, plans to work on Nakamoto, and the need for a unified approach to fee calculation.
📝 Original message:
Hi Michael and Lisa,
> Hi Michael,
>
> CLN as implemented is currently nicely decoupled from the block source; as
> a project we assume that the node runner will choose a block backend that
> fits their self-sovereignty goals.
>
> This provides us with a nice separation of concerns. The block source is
> responsible for ensuring that only consensus valid data is delivered to the
> node, which in turn allows us to focus on processing and reacting to that
> data, as necessary.
Let me just mention that [1] I have been working on a plugin
that allows experimentation with different types of Bitcoin Core
node alternatives (including core too), and it also supports BIP 157
with nakamoto [2].
In the upcoming months, I plan to allocate some time to work
directly on Nakamoto.
> There’s probably a real opportunity to “comingle” the peering of LN gossip
> + block data networks, this has been suggested a few times but never
> seriously pursued from the LN side. Having the peering functions of
> bitcoin-core broken out into a more composable/reusable piece may be a good
> first step here, and as a project would largely be on the bitcoin core
> side. Maybe this work is already in progress? I havent been keeping up with
> developments there.
A missing piece at the moment is a unified approach to fee calculation.
This logic is critical for Lightning nodes, so if we don't have a uniform
way of estimating fees, it could lead to several issues.
P.S: The fee estimation problem may have already been solved by Neutrino,
but I'm not aware of it.
[1] https://github.com/coffee-tools/folgore
[2] https://github.com/cloudhead/nakamoto
Cheers!
Vincent.