From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1DDEC002A; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 09:05:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7CEA41ECF; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 09:05:24 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org B7CEA41ECF Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20221208 header.b=UF9y8s6e X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MfJ_mWz2dSHL; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 09:05:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org A3C7941EC7 X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-yw1-x112e.google.com (mail-yw1-x112e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::112e]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3C7941EC7; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 09:05:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw1-x112e.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-54fe3cd445aso185795047b3.5; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 02:05:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1681895121; x=1684487121; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=THgzz2VXYr93qhysq+1nUy9qy1oFs2NP5jm1h905B+Y=; b=UF9y8s6eOQZF+sujjpcBoZ6bi+Z+nUh29VbLx1WoYSagG2rCTo2mza0Y+wZj1Y5ppO Puqi7yalPd2fSl3uWmNx8LTZ4CsREnK+k57uskUVfTthIh+5c71S9C0ai7TJC0q/ZfI2 aYFHYDo/VkMy1Tn19pDaHLnPd61w6XooWXDzze6NbLFvixLs3UWAcWJkDkkN4VBziMGw BlnyTa2t2hDc/FQ9o9m1z495roHG/sb7yxK8CVO2C+Z2qjy1nhSMEpu7XfCKr9P3qqMd R61osidFg79rbT5cnK+f/53kbUEUFlO0foR3vVes5LyIrZ00or3qWy1WSgIBCGgbYWEy 9vHg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1681895121; x=1684487121; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=THgzz2VXYr93qhysq+1nUy9qy1oFs2NP5jm1h905B+Y=; b=cwhaSL1I83EXnh5UY0txLILB4JCLozbmAfJrY2l8mrX3V7fOCUbReqfdv3u0gEuxzR yccIgs3NWkgCWmfvfZ1EjacMVYlLHfyelBRrVYE4bQIdbfOXO3KS3wAgLkP2AE2911ae qgbOnVXxsTNUXxe7a3E7SFU2fYTwNJuE302V0Sjs5T7+s7K3Se6uYJq4tGeoiDlEv1iy Vj4m8kuBNCbFZCPqb+PmSb6pCcKDh9kymOSPCmLMbvfl6XzPTmdRDnUNiI6a50rzKucB G+8oJb7V2fqfJAdd9MialwM/CR2DmyEsNMPU0MMFbYkQuYETo1sMLyfTxyXbj+BVYS9P fqZA== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9daWsNgt3ocKDujoIzungcYK6YhgWFc+1mSO0D+MFM8UHvLPYZZ SYJYXVyJZY2rL0lopZooLlZvXWpqN4HpZoGCZzshUdk5yI4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350ZyzWapOXncW4yFfMWHpI2796SxhyPqX0WiwKxkErUOGbjq9L39uXpD6+lOafKcjIlTxMKpI9ygmmRXluaZyJM= X-Received: by 2002:a81:ac28:0:b0:54c:a67:90b with SMTP id k40-20020a81ac28000000b0054c0a67090bmr1564250ywh.5.1681895121412; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 02:05:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Kostas Karasavvas Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 12:05:10 +0300 Message-ID: To: Michael Folkson , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000042e5bb05f9acb9aa" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 09:07:30 +0000 Cc: Lightning Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A new Bitcoin implementation integrated with Core Lightning X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 09:05:25 -0000 --00000000000042e5bb05f9acb9aa Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Michael, On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 2:40=E2=80=AFAM Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@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/APOA= S > (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 woul= d > 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 compatibl= e > 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 us= ed > "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 > 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 < > michaelfolkson@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 o= f > 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 other= s > 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 sta= rt > to take the idea more seriously. It is clear to me that the current way t= he > 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 an= d > decisions seem to be increasingly made behind closed doors or in private > IRC channels (to the extent that decisions are made at all). Core Lightni= ng > 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 tim= e > and the ultra conservatism that is needed when treating (potential) > consensus code seems to permeate into parts of the codebase that no one i= s > using, definitely isn't consensus code and should probably just be remove= d. > > The libbitcoinkernel project was (is?) an attempt to extract the consensu= s > engine out of Core but it seems like it won't achieve that as consensus i= s > 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++ cod= e > 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 optim= al > 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 nic= e > 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=3D20&t=3D= GbPm7w5BqS7rS3kiVFTNcw > > -- > Michael Folkson > Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com > Keybase: michaelfolkson > PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3 > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --=20 https://twitter.com/kkarasavvas --00000000000042e5bb05f9acb9aa Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Michael,

On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 2:40=E2= =80=AFAM Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wr= ote:
Any thoughts on this from = the Core Lightning contributors? The way I see it with upcoming proposed ch= anges to default policy (primarily though not exclusively for Lightning) an= d a soft fork activation attempt of APO/APOAS (primarily though not
<= /blockquote>

Could you please point me to a resourc= e that=20 describes the default policy changes (that are happening for lightning)? I have seen discussions here and there but it would help if they are=20 aggregated somewhere for reviewing.
=C2=A0
exclusively for Lightning) that a tighter coupli= ng 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 separati= on 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.<= br>

I might be missing some context here but what = would the actual benefit of integrating them be? Not having to install ligh= tning node separately and maybe a more intuitive UX?


Having two separate P2P = networks and two separate P2P protocols also wouldn't make much sense i= n this scenario. You could obviously still opt out of Lightning P2P message= s if you weren't interested in Lightning.

The alternative would be just to focus on Knots style consensus comp= atible forks of Core with limited additional functionality. But I think we&= #39;ve reached the point of no return on Core dominance and not having wide= ly 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.

R= egards,
Kostas

PS. Besides, the amount o= f effort would be significant. Wouldn't that effort be better spent on,= say, separating the consensus logic (i.e. a second libbitcoinkernel attemp= t)?

=C2=A0
=
Thanks
Michael
<= div style=3D"font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px">

------- Original Message -------
On Saturday, January 14th, 2023 at 20:26, Michael Folkson <michaelfolkso= n@protonmail.com> wrote:

I tweeted this = [0] back in November 2022.

"With t= he btcd bugs and the analysis paralysis on a RBF policy option in Core incr= easingly 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 Lightni= ng 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 mo= re seriously. It is clear to me that the current way the Bitcoin Core proje= ct is being managed is not how I would like an open source project to be ma= naged. Very little discussion is public anymore and decisions seem to be in= creasingly made behind closed doors or in private IRC channels (to the exte= nt that decisions are made at all). Core Lightning seems to have the opposi= te problem. It is managed effectively in the open (admittedly with fewer co= ntributors) but doesn't have the eyeballs or the usage that Bitcoin Cor= e does. Regardless, selfishly I at some point would like a bare bones Bitco= in and Lightning implementation integrated in one codebase. The Bitcoin Cor= e codebase has collected a lot of cruft over time and the ultra conservatis= m that is needed when treating (potential) consensus code seems to permeate= into parts of the codebase that no one is using, definitely isn't cons= ensus code and should probably just be removed.

The libbitcoinkernel project was (is?) an attempt to extract the c= onsensus 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 compatib= le codebase forks of Bitcoin Core seem to still the model. To what extent y= ou 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 supe= rset of C but assuming this merging of Bitcoin Core and Core Lightning is/w= as the optimal final destination it surely would have been better if Core L= ightning was written in the same language (i.e. with classes) as Bitcoin Co= re.

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 lo= ng 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 b= e a lull in soft fork activation chaos.

Thanks
Michael
<= div style=3D"font-family:Arial;font-size:14px">

--
Michael Folks= on
Email: michaelfolkson at proton= mail.com
Keybase: michaelfolkson
PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9= 835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--
--00000000000042e5bb05f9acb9aa--