Lightning Specification Meeting 2022/01/17

[t-bast]

The meeting will take place on Monday 2022/01/17 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

Pull Request Review

• Warning follow up clarification s/send a warning/warn the user/ in BOLT 5 to avoid confusion #951
• Clarify commit broadcast Removed requirement to broadcast an outdated commitment transaction #942
• Dynamic DNS support in gossip messages BOLT 7: add gossip address descriptor type DNS hostname #911 or BOLT 1: adds remote address to optional init_tlvs (IP discovery) #917
• Route blinding Route Blinding (Feature 24/25) #765
• Onion messages BOLT 7: Onion message support (features 38/39) #759
• Add dust exposure threshold Add a max_dust_htlc_exposure_msat #919
• Simple turbo channels enablement Explicitly allow funding_locked early, and support alias scids (feat 46/47/50/51) #910

Long Term Updates

• Dual funding interactive-tx: Add dual-funding flow, using the interactive tx protocol (feature 28/29) #851
• Liquidity ads option_will_fund: liquidity ads #878
• Splicing Splice draft (feature 62/63) #863
• Offers Offers #798
• Simplified commitment Feature 106/107: option_simplified_update. #867
• Trampoline routing Trampoline Routing (2021 edition) (Feature 56/57) #829 and Trampoline onion format (Feature 56/57) #836
• Upfront payments / DoS protection Hold fees #843
• Peer storage backup Peer backup storage (feature 40/41/42/43) #881
• Anonymous gossip
• Taproot updates

Backlog

The following are topics that we should discuss at some point, so if we have time to discuss them great, otherwise they slip to the next meeting.

• lnprototest (https://github.com/rustyrussell/lnprototest)

[lightning-developer]

May I kindly ask to also have a quick look at #941? This is a rather trivial cleanup and unification in wording and I think it has a concept ACK by @rustyrussell. It needs review in case I broke something and it touches almost all bolts in about 100 places. With every other merge we run into risk of more merge conflicts which are already there. In case we get agreement I am happy to rebase and resolve the new conflicting changes that have been introduced.

[t-bast]

May I kindly ask to also have a quick look at #941?

I'll raise it to attendees, so that everyone can give it a quick look.
To be honest I don't see the usefulness of that change, that's why I didn't give it a review.
If others find it useful though, I'm happy to apply it.