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 2022/12/05 #1046

Closed
13 of 28 tasks
t-bast opened this issue Dec 5, 2022 · 8 comments
Closed
13 of 28 tasks

Lightning Specification Meeting 2022/12/05 #1046

t-bast opened this issue Dec 5, 2022 · 8 comments

Comments

@t-bast
Copy link
Collaborator

t-bast commented Dec 5, 2022

The meeting will take place on Monday 2022/12/05 at 7pm UTC (5:30am Adelaide time) on Libera Chat IRC #lightning-dev. It is open to the public.

A video link is available for higher bandwidth communication: https://meet.jit.si/Lightning-Spec-Meeting

Recently Updated Proposals

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 Dec 5, 2022
@t-bast
Copy link
Collaborator Author

t-bast commented Dec 5, 2022

I won't be able to attend this spec meeting, I'll let you guys get all of those PRs merged 😉
Can someone record the meeting so that we try using a tool to generate the transcript?

@Roasbeef
Copy link
Collaborator

Roasbeef commented Dec 5, 2022

larger onion errors:

  • lnd has PR and also compat w/ test vectors, eclair verified with test vectors -- MERGED

dust recommendations:

  • ack for t-bast, the others need to take a look at

blinded paths:

  • CL has experimental option in the current release, now ready to do interop testing
  • lnd has a new PR up targeting the basic interaction at the edges, looking to have something landing the next major release
  • lingering error details:
    • ended up suppressing all the errors
    • in the past would turn all errors into "something happened in the errors", then ended up backing off a bit on the error suppression
    • if you're the entry point though, then might as well give them more error information
    • final error model: if you're the entry point, send a real error -- otherwise, you just say "something happened in the tunnel"

fat errors:

  • related to prepay, how aggressive are we gonna be on the prepay stuff?
    • most prepay schemes let you tell how far it got, since you know how far it go
    • in this case, are fat errors needed? nice part is that then you're able to get timing information, which can help inform forwarding, etc
  • option question: how do ppl feel about prepays?
    • if there's some constant re N (amount of prepay), then does that give others information about the path length, etc?
      * advertisement: implementation path?
    • new node ann?
    • just add on 2% of the fee to everything, uniform value as well
      * w/o timing is it worthwhile?
      * this seems more or less complete as well, compared to going to the drawing board to really hash out the prepay schemes
    • doesn't hold up other stuff, is now concrete
      * compared to prepay, this gives more granular information w.r.t who exactly failed the error
  • concrete steps:
    • assign feature bit
    • additional TLV type to tell them to do the proper transformation
  • idea re deployment:
    • coordinate re a network wide update cycle
    • add bit now, no one uses it until later date in the future (date, or node count, etc, etc)

anchor test vectors:

  • on todo list for CLN+LND

dual fundign:

  • re-working some txabort stuff (when to abort on that)
  • current CLN release isn't interop ready, needs to fix an abort portion of it

error in ctlv delta expiry:

  • ppl need to check out still

onion messaging:

  • interop land, lnd has some basic interop w/ ldk

offers:

  • interop land, WIP

option closing rejected:

  • lnd has basic impl of, looking to release along side default fee_range, and also a position where the responder always accepts the co-op close instance
  • should also send what the initiator thinks should be the reasonable fee range
  • could be an odd message if we wanted to avoid the feature bit (then would also send a warning)

taproot:

  • JIT nonces ftw, lnd now working to implement the new version
  • shooting for EOY interop w/ LDK

@Roasbeef
Copy link
Collaborator

Roasbeef commented Dec 5, 2022

@t-bast I have a recording of the transcript, I'm gonna try this new fancy AI transcription software to see how it does (will post results here): https://github.com/openai/whisper

@t-bast
Copy link
Collaborator Author

t-bast commented Dec 6, 2022

Nice, thanks @Roasbeef !

@Roasbeef
Copy link
Collaborator

Roasbeef commented Dec 6, 2022

Here's the transcript: https://gist.github.com/Roasbeef/24533cd0cfc5310e530af96afd1e2b2b

I used the "medium" model on my laptop (takes up about 6GB while running, so will run on my work station next time instead), and it's pretty good though there're some weird words in there.

This is the command I used to generate the transcript:

whisper Lightning-Spec-Meeting_2022-12-05T20_00_19.967Z.webm --model medium

The default download from the jitsi was a webm.

@t-bast
Copy link
Collaborator Author

t-bast commented Dec 7, 2022

There are some parts that lost me ("I mean, so Vinyl Flask 2023 is what it sounds like.") but it's really nice to have a transcript, I was able to go through everything that was discussed, so that looks like a good option, thanks @Roasbeef !

@Roasbeef
Copy link
Collaborator

Roasbeef commented Dec 7, 2022 via email

@ariard
Copy link
Contributor

ariard commented Dec 8, 2022

Thanks for the transcripts! Really valuable to have them.

@t-bast t-bast unpinned this issue Dec 15, 2022
@t-bast t-bast closed this as completed Dec 15, 2022
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