📅 Original date posted:2016-05-17
📝 Original message:
"This time for sure!"
OK, there's another revision to the 02-wire-protocol.md draft; this time
I implemented a protocol simulator to make sure it's reasonable. As a
bonus, it spits out timing diagrams!
The summary is that we don't need acknowledgement numbers; the
revocation reply gives us everything we need. The draft expresses it in
terms of local & remote commitment transactions, and acked and non-acked
changesets for both.
Basically, the revocation reply is the moment at which you add incoming
changes ("unacked") to the other side (as "acked"). It seems to work
pretty well in all the corner cases, and it's wire-optimal AFAICT.
I've aimed for a layman's writeup here:
https://medium.com/@rusty_lightning/lightning-inter-node-protocol-a-primer-c642816c8b8#.8skw6hfar
The spec is here:
https://github.com/rustyrussell/lightning-rfc/blob/master/bolts/02-wire-protocol.md
And tests are here:
https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning/blob/test-protocol/test/test_protocol.c
https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning/tree/test-protocol/test/commits
Feedback certainly welcome!
Rusty.
Rusty Russell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1zw…hkhpx
2023-06-09 12:46:16
in reply to nevent1q…9857
Author Public Key
npub1zw7cc8z78v6s3grujfvcv3ckpvg6kr0w7nz9yzvwyglyg0qu5sjsqhkhpxPublished at
2023-06-09 12:46:16Event JSON
{
"id": "5eeeaa493a024c2351c14af0cb78be0cf14634abb63b6d2be3545f6b3f926c16",
"pubkey": "13bd8c1c5e3b3508a07c92598647160b11ab0deef4c452098e223e443c1ca425",
"created_at": 1686314776,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"3776ff917a8a13bb18868f2f2214f27fd0d4f37fbeedb00405c961e44af03ff1",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"9456f7acb763eaab2e02bd8e60cf17df74f352c2ae579dce1f1dd25c95dd611c"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-05-17\n📝 Original message:\n\"This time for sure!\"\n\nOK, there's another revision to the 02-wire-protocol.md draft; this time\nI implemented a protocol simulator to make sure it's reasonable. As a\nbonus, it spits out timing diagrams!\n\nThe summary is that we don't need acknowledgement numbers; the\nrevocation reply gives us everything we need. The draft expresses it in\nterms of local \u0026 remote commitment transactions, and acked and non-acked\nchangesets for both.\n\nBasically, the revocation reply is the moment at which you add incoming\nchanges (\"unacked\") to the other side (as \"acked\"). It seems to work\npretty well in all the corner cases, and it's wire-optimal AFAICT.\n\nI've aimed for a layman's writeup here:\n\n https://medium.com/@rusty_lightning/lightning-inter-node-protocol-a-primer-c642816c8b8#.8skw6hfar\n\nThe spec is here:\n\nhttps://github.com/rustyrussell/lightning-rfc/blob/master/bolts/02-wire-protocol.md\n\nAnd tests are here:\n\n https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning/blob/test-protocol/test/test_protocol.c\n https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning/tree/test-protocol/test/commits\n\nFeedback certainly welcome!\nRusty.",
"sig": "7b355ad4887dd4d8b88fa241e2ab287ccfd28ab4bed1782d95e3fa88f83775b85a34c23c816344bab1d533aabc1e6b60b5ce7c86ca0f51078aa3c91365b66b1a"
}