From lf-lists at mattcorallo.com Wed Oct 13 01:59:08 2021 From: lf-lists at mattcorallo.com (Matt Corallo) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 18:59:08 -0700 Subject: [Lightning-dev] Removing lnd's source code from the Lightning specs repository In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <13898d2e-35fc-fb3f-2c4c-b610689b5e2b@bluematt.me> On 10/12/21 12:57, Olaoluwa Osuntokun wrote: > Hi Fabrice, > > > I believe that was a mistake: a few days ago, Arcane Research published a > > fairly detailed report on the state of the Lightning Network: > > https://twitter.com/ArcaneResearch/status/1445442967582302213 > .? They > > obviously did some real work there, and seem to imply that their report > > was vetted by Open Node and Lightning Labs. > > Appreciate the hard work from Arcane on putting together this report. That > said, our role wasn't to review the entire report, but instead to provide > feedback on questions they had. Had we reviewed the section in question, we > would have spotted those errors and told the authors to fix them. Mistakes > happen, and we're glad it got corrected. > > Also note that lnd has _never_ referred to itself as the "reference" > implementation.? A few years ago some other implementations adopted that > title themselves, but have since adopted softer language. > > > So I'm proposing that lnd's source code be removed from > > https://github.com/lightningnetwork/ (and moved to > > https://github.com/lightninglabs for example, with the rest of > their > > Lightning tools, but it's up to Lightning Labs). > > I think it's worth briefly revisiting a bit of history here w.r.t the github > org in question. In the beginning, the lightningnetwork github org was > created by Joseph, and the lightningnetwork/paper repo was added, the > manuscript that kicked off this entire thing. Later lightningnetwork/lnd was > created where we started to work on an initial implementation (before the > BOLTs in their current form existed), and we were added as owners. > Eventually we (devs of current impls) all met up in Milan and decided to > converge on a single specification, thus we added the BOLTs to the same > repo, despite it being used for lnd and knowingly so. > > We purposefully made a _new_ lightninglabs github org as we wanted to keep > lnd, the implementation distinct from any of our future commercial > products/services. To this day, we've architected all our paid products to > be built _on top_ of lnd, rather than within it. As a result, users always > opt into these services. > > As it seems the primary grievance here is collocating an implementation of > Lightning along with the _specification_ of the protocol, and given that the > spec was added last, how about we move the spec to an independent repo owned > by the community? I currently have github.com/lightning , and would be > happy > to donate it to the community, or we could create a new org like > "lightning-specs" or something similar. We could then move the spec (the > BOLTs and also potentially the bLIPs since some devs want it to be within > its own repo) there, and have it be the home for any other > community-backed/owned projects.? I think the creation of a new github > organization would also be a good opportunity to further formalize the set > of stakeholders and the general process related to the evolution of > Lightning the protocol. > > Thoughts? No super strong opinion on where things end up, but roughly agree they should be separate. In other words, this proposal sounds good to me, want to set it up? Matt _______________________________________________ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev