Matt Corallo [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2021-10-12 📝 Original message: On 10/12/21 12:57, ...
📅 Original date posted:2021-10-12
📝 Original message:
On 10/12/21 12:57, Olaoluwa Osuntokun wrote:
> Hi Fabrice,
>
> > I believe that was a mistake: a few days ago, Arcane Research published a
> > fairly detailed report on the state of the Lightning Network:
> > https://twitter.com/ArcaneResearch/status/1445442967582302213
> <https://twitter.com/ArcaneResearch/status/1445442967582302213>;. They
> > obviously did some real work there, and seem to imply that their report
> > was vetted by Open Node and Lightning Labs.
>
> Appreciate the hard work from Arcane on putting together this report. That
> said, our role wasn't to review the entire report, but instead to provide
> feedback on questions they had. Had we reviewed the section in question, we
> would have spotted those errors and told the authors to fix them. Mistakes
> happen, and we're glad it got corrected.
>
> Also note that lnd has _never_ referred to itself as the "reference"
> implementation. A few years ago some other implementations adopted that
> title themselves, but have since adopted softer language.
>
> > So I'm proposing that lnd's source code be removed from
> > https://github.com/lightningnetwork/ <https://github.com/lightningnetwork/>; (and moved to
> > https://github.com/lightninglabs <https://github.com/lightninglabs>; for example, with the rest of
> their
> > Lightning tools, but it's up to Lightning Labs).
>
> I think it's worth briefly revisiting a bit of history here w.r.t the github
> org in question. In the beginning, the lightningnetwork github org was
> created by Joseph, and the lightningnetwork/paper repo was added, the
> manuscript that kicked off this entire thing. Later lightningnetwork/lnd was
> created where we started to work on an initial implementation (before the
> BOLTs in their current form existed), and we were added as owners.
> Eventually we (devs of current impls) all met up in Milan and decided to
> converge on a single specification, thus we added the BOLTs to the same
> repo, despite it being used for lnd and knowingly so.
>
> We purposefully made a _new_ lightninglabs github org as we wanted to keep
> lnd, the implementation distinct from any of our future commercial
> products/services. To this day, we've architected all our paid products to
> be built _on top_ of lnd, rather than within it. As a result, users always
> opt into these services.
>
> As it seems the primary grievance here is collocating an implementation of
> Lightning along with the _specification_ of the protocol, and given that the
> spec was added last, how about we move the spec to an independent repo owned
> by the community? I currently have github.com/lightning <http://github.com/lightning>;, and would be
> happy
> to donate it to the community, or we could create a new org like
> "lightning-specs" or something similar. We could then move the spec (the
> BOLTs and also potentially the bLIPs since some devs want it to be within
> its own repo) there, and have it be the home for any other
> community-backed/owned projects. I think the creation of a new github
> organization would also be a good opportunity to further formalize the set
> of stakeholders and the general process related to the evolution of
> Lightning the protocol.
>
> Thoughts?
No super strong opinion on where things end up, but roughly agree they should be separate. In other
words, this proposal sounds good to me, want to set it up?
Matt
_______________________________________________
Lightning-dev mailing list
Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
📝 Original message:
On 10/12/21 12:57, Olaoluwa Osuntokun wrote:
> Hi Fabrice,
>
> > I believe that was a mistake: a few days ago, Arcane Research published a
> > fairly detailed report on the state of the Lightning Network:
> > https://twitter.com/ArcaneResearch/status/1445442967582302213
> <https://twitter.com/ArcaneResearch/status/1445442967582302213>;. They
> > obviously did some real work there, and seem to imply that their report
> > was vetted by Open Node and Lightning Labs.
>
> Appreciate the hard work from Arcane on putting together this report. That
> said, our role wasn't to review the entire report, but instead to provide
> feedback on questions they had. Had we reviewed the section in question, we
> would have spotted those errors and told the authors to fix them. Mistakes
> happen, and we're glad it got corrected.
>
> Also note that lnd has _never_ referred to itself as the "reference"
> implementation. A few years ago some other implementations adopted that
> title themselves, but have since adopted softer language.
>
> > So I'm proposing that lnd's source code be removed from
> > https://github.com/lightningnetwork/ <https://github.com/lightningnetwork/>; (and moved to
> > https://github.com/lightninglabs <https://github.com/lightninglabs>; for example, with the rest of
> their
> > Lightning tools, but it's up to Lightning Labs).
>
> I think it's worth briefly revisiting a bit of history here w.r.t the github
> org in question. In the beginning, the lightningnetwork github org was
> created by Joseph, and the lightningnetwork/paper repo was added, the
> manuscript that kicked off this entire thing. Later lightningnetwork/lnd was
> created where we started to work on an initial implementation (before the
> BOLTs in their current form existed), and we were added as owners.
> Eventually we (devs of current impls) all met up in Milan and decided to
> converge on a single specification, thus we added the BOLTs to the same
> repo, despite it being used for lnd and knowingly so.
>
> We purposefully made a _new_ lightninglabs github org as we wanted to keep
> lnd, the implementation distinct from any of our future commercial
> products/services. To this day, we've architected all our paid products to
> be built _on top_ of lnd, rather than within it. As a result, users always
> opt into these services.
>
> As it seems the primary grievance here is collocating an implementation of
> Lightning along with the _specification_ of the protocol, and given that the
> spec was added last, how about we move the spec to an independent repo owned
> by the community? I currently have github.com/lightning <http://github.com/lightning>;, and would be
> happy
> to donate it to the community, or we could create a new org like
> "lightning-specs" or something similar. We could then move the spec (the
> BOLTs and also potentially the bLIPs since some devs want it to be within
> its own repo) there, and have it be the home for any other
> community-backed/owned projects. I think the creation of a new github
> organization would also be a good opportunity to further formalize the set
> of stakeholders and the general process related to the evolution of
> Lightning the protocol.
>
> Thoughts?
No super strong opinion on where things end up, but roughly agree they should be separate. In other
words, this proposal sounds good to me, want to set it up?
Matt
_______________________________________________
Lightning-dev mailing list
Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev