{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","title":"Ryan Gentry [ARCHIVE] wrote","author_name":"Ryan Gentry [ARCHIVE] (npub1jk…f6y7d)","author_url":"https://yabu.me/npub1jk0t9q8dag7adpswdsgl6phy603shac5s2fp0lpxwwmpmatkzwas8f6y7d","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://yabu.me","html":"📅 Original date posted:2021-06-30\n📝 Original message:\nHi all,\n\nThe recent thread around zero-conf channels [1] provides an opportunity to\ndiscuss how the BOLT process handles features and best practices that arise\nin the wild vs. originating within the process itself. Zero-conf channels\nare one of many LN innovations on the app layer that have struggled to make\ntheir way into the spec. John Carvalho and Bitrefill launched Turbo\nchannels in April 2019 [2], Breez posted their solution to the mailing list\nfor feedback in August 2020 [3], and we know at least ACINQ and Muun\n(amongst others) have their own implementations. In an ideal world there\nwould be a descriptive design document that the app layer implementers had\ncollaborated on over the years that the spec group could then pick up and\nmerge into the BOLTs now that the feature is deemed spec-worthy.\n\nOver the last couple of months, we have discussed the idea of adding a\nBIP-style process (bLIPs? SPARKs? [4]) on top of the BOLTs with various\nmembers of the community, and have received positive feedback from both app\nlayer and protocol devs. This would not affect the existing BOLT process at\nall, but simply add a place for app layer best practices to be succinctly\ndescribed and organized, especially those that require coordination. These\nfeatures are being built outside of the BOLT process today anyways, so\nideally a bLIP process would bring them into the fold instead of leaving\nthem buried in old ML posts or not documented at all.\n\nSome potential bLIP ideas that people have mentioned include: each lnurl\nvariant, on-the-fly channel opens, AMP, dynamic commitments, podcast\npayment metadata, p2p messaging formats, new pathfinding heuristics, remote\nnode connection standards, etc.\n\nIf the community is interested in moving forward, we've started a branch\n[5] describing such a process. It's based on BIP-0002, so not trying to\nreinvent any wheels. It would be great to have developers from various\nimplementations and from the broader app layer ecosystem volunteer to be\nlisted as editors (basically the same role as in the BIPs).\n\nLooking forward to hearing your thoughts!\n\nBest,\nRyan\n\n[1]\nhttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2021-June/003074.html\n\n[2]\nhttps://www.coindesk.com/bitrefills-thor-turbo-lets-you-get-started-with-bitcoins-lightning-faster\n\n[3]\nhttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2020-August/002780.html\n\n[4] bLIP = Bitcoin Lightning Improvement Proposal and SPARK =\nStandardization of Protocols at the Request of the Kommunity (h/t fiatjaf)\n\n[5]\nhttps://github.com/ryanthegentry/lightning-rfc/blob/blip-0001/blips/blip-0001.mediawiki\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20210630/ed2d0adc/attachment.html\u003e"}