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 2025/02/24 #1229

Open
8 of 18 tasks
t-bast opened this issue Feb 19, 2025 · 2 comments
Open
8 of 18 tasks

Lightning Specification Meeting 2025/02/24 #1229

t-bast opened this issue Feb 19, 2025 · 2 comments

Comments

@t-bast
Copy link
Collaborator

t-bast commented Feb 19, 2025

The meeting will take place on Monday 2025/02/24 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 / Seeking Review

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 Feb 19, 2025
@joostjager
Copy link
Collaborator

joostjager commented Feb 24, 2025

Would like to put attributable errors back on the agenda for today's meeting. In particular #1044 (comment)

@Roasbeef
Copy link
Collaborator

zero fee commitments:

  • rn take all dusted funds and put to fees
    • other edge cases re dusting attacks, now a party can
  • if anchor is below dust, commitment txn fee must be zero
  • side effect of needing to always have funds on chain
    • t-bast has proposal to still sign fees for the HTLC transactions for the mobile client: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/zero-fee-commitments-for-mobile-wallets/1453
      • success txn race condition?
      • how many sigs?
        • more than 2? 10?
        • only need two given it's all about settling an HTLC?
    • mobile client don't need to worry about HTLC race conditions
      * using P2A now?
    • need to have some sort of threshold re allocation?
    • P2A means that anyone can claim it, only the miners can claim the dust
      • must be spent in block -- not very easy to actually enforce that policy
        • ways to still have it be relayed? mining algo would need to mine just the parent instead of the child
        • potential other ways leak zero value outputs or normal
  • implementation progress:
    • LDK started an impl, small patch nearly all there
    • Eclair, mostly done with everything, needs to hook up into package submission API
      • using sendrawtransaction, can't submit just that, need to use submitpackage API
        • testpackageaccept? doesn't apply the package policies (yet)
          * HTLC txns use sequence zero
      • removing the CSV 1 cutout, so don't need the sequence there anymore, can either be max seq or zero
      • need to keep logic to broadcast HTLC txns after one block
        • TRUC stuff can't have more than one dependent?
        • can spend both in one transaction? 3 inputs potentially (P2A, HTLC txn, extra fee input), 2 output

splicing:

  • waiting for dusty to give feedback on retransmission stuff
    • looking at new changes by this week
  • matt's PR for changing dual funding sig during reconnection
    • eclair ready to cut new release w/ logic, wants to do interop

taproot:

  • next steps:
    • integrate nonce work from splicing
    • add rbf awareness

attributable errors:

  • lot of talk about signalling:
    • when ppl start to add the new legacy errors, so ppl now how to transform it and if they should expect it or not
  • new view:
    • populate a TLV field w/ everything extra, those in a special TLV field, if they don't understand it, they just drop the TLV field
    • more natural way of updating possibly
      • but maybe still want to know if preferred?
    • need to factor in a max route length, to avoid having both errors there which can lead to the max msg size being exceeded
    • can detect who supports it, based on which errors are returned
  • joost to give implementation a shot, will see if anythings pops up during impl

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