Hi Kostas
> Could you please point me to a resource that describes the default policy
> changes (that are happening for lightning)? I have seen discussions here and
> there but it would help if they are aggregated somewhere for reviewing.
It is hard to follow because most of the discussions aren't on public channels,
a number of the devs working on these proposed default policy changes aren't
taking the BIP process seriously and no one is willing to discuss the criteria
for merging default policy changes (and consensus changes for that matter) into
bitcoin-inquisition (default signet). In addition the work (to the extent that
it is public) is scattered all over the place. So yeah it seems like a mess to
me from the perspective of someone is seeking to follow, review and monitor it.
This Bitcoin StackExchange post [0] is my first attempt to do what you're
looking for and these Bitcoin Core PR review clubs [1], [2] were really good
from Gloria. But yeah the BIP process (as I've said a thousand times and been
ignored) is the place to hammer out specifications for complex things like
default policy proposals and when people don't care about formalizing
specifications it becomes very hard for people like you and me to follow.
> Separation of concerns always makes sense to manage complexity. One would
> need to have really strong incentives to counter the complexity argument.
>> I might be missing some context here but what would the actual benefit of
>> integrating them be? Not having to install lightning node separately and
>> maybe a more intuitive UX?
As I say in the original email having two separate P2P networks and two
separate P2P protocols (perhaps) doesn't make much sense if all (or most of the
nodes) are both full nodes and Lightning nodes. A testing framework that
integrates both base layer and Lightning tests could potentially be easier to
track edge cases which fall in the grey area between base layer and Lightning
but are critically important for Lightning. A Core wallet that doesn't support
Lightning doesn't make much sense in a world where transaction fees are really
high and you have to use Lightning unless you are transferring huge amounts. I
agree with you that these arguments have to be strong to counter the separation
of concerns angle and maybe it is too early to consider it. But if moving in
the direction of more widely used consensus compatible forks of Core then
having Lightning integrated could make it an attractive option.
> PS. Besides, the amount of effort would be significant. Wouldn't that effort
> be better spent on, say, separating the consensus logic (i.e. a second
> libbitcoinkernel attempt)?
libbitcoinkernel can achieve smaller (and still important) goals but I'm
skeptical that the more ambitious goal of having lots of different
implementations in different languages with libbitcoinkernel at its core and
not having to worry about consensus bugs will be reached in the medium term. As
we saw with the recent btcd/lnd bugs [3] consensus bugs can crop up in places
you might not expect. In that case it was a wire parsing library that you
wouldn't expect to be part of a libbitcoinkernel. So if you're still going to
encounter consensus bugs outside of libbitcoinkernel there isn't much point (in
my view) in using it for alternative implementations.
Thanks
Michael
[0]:
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/117315/what-and-where-are-the-current-status-of-the-bip-125-replacement-the-v3-policy
[1]: https://bitcoincore.reviews/25038
[2]: https://bitcoincore.reviews/25038-2
[3]:
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/115527/what-is-the-october-2022-bug-in-lnd-what-caused-it-and-what-would-prevent-a-sim
--
Michael Folkson
Email: michaelfolkson at [protonmail.com](http://protonmail.com/)
Keybase: michaelfolkson
PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3
------- Original Message -------
On Wednesday, April 19th, 2023 at 10:05, Kostas Karasavvas
<kkarasav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 2:40 AM Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-...@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Any thoughts on this from the Core Lightning contributors? The way I see it
>> with upcoming proposed changes to default policy (primarily though not
>> exclusively for Lightning) and a soft fork activation attempt of APO/APOAS
>> (primarily though not
>
> Could you please point me to a resource that describes the default policy
> changes (that are happening for lightning)? I have seen discussions here and
> there but it would help if they are aggregated somewhere for reviewing.
>
>> exclusively for Lightning) that a tighter coupling between the full node and
>> the Lightning node could eventually make sense. In a world where transaction
>> fees were much higher you'd think almost every full node would also want to
>> be a Lightning node and so the separation of concerns would make less sense.
>
> Separation of concerns always makes sense to manage complexity. One would
> need to have really strong incentives to counter the complexity argument.
>
> I might be missing some context here but what would the actual benefit of
> integrating them be? Not having to install lightning node separately and
> maybe a more intuitive UX?
>
>> Having two separate P2P networks and two separate P2P protocols also
>> wouldn't make much sense in this scenario. You could obviously still opt out
>> of Lightning P2P messages if you weren't interested in Lightning.
>
>> The alternative would be just to focus on Knots style consensus compatible
>> forks of Core with limited additional functionality. But I think we've
>> reached the point of no return on Core dominance and not having widely used
>> "distros". As the ecosystem scales systems and processes should be
>> constantly evolving and improving and to me if anything Core's seem to be
>> going backwards.
>
> Personally, I have great difficulty seeing lightning as something other than
> an L2 build on top of Bitcoin. There will be other L2s.
>
> Regards,
> Kostas
>
> PS. Besides, the amount of effort would be significant. Wouldn't that effort
> be better spent on, say, separating the consensus logic (i.e. a second
> libbitcoinkernel attempt)?
>
>> Thanks
>> Michael
>>
>> --
>> Michael Folkson
>> Email: michaelfolkson at [protonmail.com](http://protonmail.com/)
>> Keybase: michaelfolkson
>> PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3
>>
>> ------- Original Message -------
>> On Saturday, January 14th, 2023 at 20:26, Michael Folkson
>> <michaelfolk...@protonmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I tweeted this [0] back in November 2022.
>>>
>>> "With the btcd bugs and the analysis paralysis on a RBF policy option in
>>> Core increasingly thinking @BitcoinKnots and consensus compatible forks of
>>> Core are the future. Gonna chalk that one up to another thing @LukeDashjr
>>> was right about all along."
>>>
>>> A new bare bones Knots style Bitcoin implementation (in C++/C) integrated
>>> with Core Lightning was a long term idea I had (and presumably many others
>>> have had) but the dysfunction on the Bitcoin Core project this week (if
>>> anything it has been getting worse over time, not better) has made me start
>>> to take the idea more seriously. It is clear to me that the current way the
>>> Bitcoin Core project is being managed is not how I would like an open
>>> source project to be managed. Very little discussion is public anymore and
>>> decisions seem to be increasingly made behind closed doors or in private
>>> IRC channels (to the extent that decisions are made at all). Core Lightning
>>> seems to have the opposite problem. It is managed effectively in the open
>>> (admittedly with fewer contributors) but doesn't have the eyeballs or the
>>> usage that Bitcoin Core does. Regardless, selfishly I at some point would
>>> like a bare bones Bitcoin and Lightning implementation integrated in one
>>> codebase. The Bitcoin Core codebase has collected a lot of cruft over time
>>> and the ultra conservatism that is needed when treating (potential)
>>> consensus code seems to permeate into parts of the codebase that no one is
>>> using, definitely isn't consensus code and should probably just be removed.
>>>
>>> The libbitcoinkernel project was (is?) an attempt to extract the consensus
>>> engine out of Core but it seems like it won't achieve that as consensus is
>>> just too slippery a concept and Knots style consensus compatible codebase
>>> forks of Bitcoin Core seem to still the model. To what extent you can
>>> safely chop off this cruft and effectively maintain this less crufty fork
>>> of Bitcoin Core also isn't clear to me yet.
>>>
>>> Then there is the question of whether it makes sense to mix C and C++ code
>>> that people have different views on. C++ is obviously a superset of C but
>>> assuming this merging of Bitcoin Core and Core Lightning is/was the optimal
>>> final destination it surely would have been better if Core Lightning was
>>> written in the same language (i.e. with classes) as Bitcoin Core.
>>>
>>> I'm just floating the idea to (hopefully) hear from people who are much
>>> more familiar with the entirety of the Bitcoin Core and Core Lightning
>>> codebases. It would be an ambitious long term project but it would be nice
>>> to focus on some ambitious project(s) (even if just conceptually) for a
>>> while given (thankfully) there seems to be a lull in soft fork activation
>>> chaos.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Michael
>>>
>>> [0]:
>>> https://twitter.com/michaelfolkson/status/1589220155006910464?s=20&t=GbPm7w5BqS7rS3kiVFTNcw
>>>
>>> --
>>> Michael Folkson
>>> Email: michaelfolkson at [protonmail.com](http://protonmail.com/)
>>> Keybase: michaelfolkson
>>> PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-...@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
> --
>
> https://twitter.com/kkarasavvas
_______________________________________________
Lightning-dev mailing list
Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
