Bitcoin Error Log [ARCHIVE] / is on Nostr

⚠️ This account is not associated with a real person. It's an archival account for mailing list messages.
🗓️ Active from 2020-10-14 to 2021-12-06
💬 Posted a total of 5 messages
📚 Participated in the following categories: Lightning-dev, bitcoin-dev
🔇 Please do not DM this user as it's used for archive purposes only.

Last Notes

2023-06-09 13:04:35

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2021-12-06
📝 Original message:
Omni Layer already does this, on Bitcoin, and recently added NFT support,
but I don't know much about that aspect.
OmniBOLT also exists as a LN layer for Omni assets. OB is being audited
right now.
Sending NFTs using Lightning is generally impractical, as it is a
liquidity-based routing network, thus requires a whole new network for each
new asset. But fungible assets should be doable by any popular token asset.
I don't think RGB is practically usable by anyone yet, and still needs
severe attention paid to auditing the design, if it is ever completed at
all...
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 7:00 AM <
lightning-dev-request at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Send Lightning-dev mailing list submissions to
> lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> lightning-dev-request at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> lightning-dev-owner at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Lightning-dev digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: [bitcoin-dev] Sending OP_RETURN via Bitcoin Lightning (Karl)
> 2. Re: [bitcoin-dev] Sending OP_RETURN via Bitcoin Lightning
> (Martin Habov?tiak)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 05:20:55 -0500
> From: Karl <gmkarl at gmail.com>
> To: H?ctor Jos? C?rdenas Pacheco <hcarpach at gmail.com>, Bitcoin
> Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> Cc: lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: [Lightning-dev] [bitcoin-dev] Sending OP_RETURN via
> Bitcoin Lightning
> Message-ID:
> <CALL-=e5mF9TqbbD=
> Cf-bawbw4dq2PGjC9W_nqAQeHsB829ZpNg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm not a bitcoin developer.
>
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2021, 5:05 AM H?ctor Jos? C?rdenas Pacheco via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I?ve been thinking about how OP_RETURN is being used to create and trade
> > NFTs on Bitcoin (think RarePepes, SoG and other new ones) and was
> wondering
> > if it?s possible to
> >
>
> Do you have a link to any of these protocols?
>
> make transactions with this opcode via Lightning.
> >
> > More specific questions could be:
> >
> > 1. Can opcodes like OP_RETURN be inside a channel?s opening or closing
> > transaction?
> > 2. If so, could that OP_RETURN change hands within that channel or
> > network of channels?
> >
> > OP_RETURNs do not have ownership according to the bitcoin network. It is
> not hard to define a protocol that associates an OP_RETURN with ownership,
> and ownership could then be transferred via lightning by sending associated
> currency via lightning. Robustness improvements seem possible.
>
>
> > 1. If possible, could the OP_RETURN be divisible? Could one person
> > send a piece of a OP_RETURN just like one can do right now on the
> primary
> > ledger or would it need to maintain the OP_RETURN code intact?
> >
> > OP_RETURNs themselves do not have ownership, but you can define a
> protocol
> that gives them divisible ownership, including via lightning.
>
> I?m assuming that, if possible, this would need a protocol layer parallel
> > to Bitcoin/Lightning that stores and reads all Bitcoin transactions and
> the
> > ones which involve the node's channels as well as the ones with the
> > OP_RETURN, just like CounterParty does right now with the primary ledger.
> >
> > Thank in advance.
> > ??
> >
> > *H?ctor C?rdenas*@hcarpach
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20211206/f3253ec4/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 12:31:29 +0100
> From: Martin Habov?tiak <martin.habovstiak at gmail.com>
> To: Karl <gmkarl at gmail.com>
> Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>, lightning-dev
> <lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>, H?ctor Jos? C?rdenas
> Pacheco <hcarpach at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Lightning-dev] [bitcoin-dev] Sending OP_RETURN via
> Bitcoin Lightning
> Message-ID:
> <
> CALkkCJas_pf7Un45CJyFg8j9cBk8PtKN4iYAL81TtLSRNnKqeg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I recommend you researching RGB: https://rgb-org.github.io/
>
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2021, 11:21 Karl <gmkarl at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm not a bitcoin developer.
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 6, 2021, 5:05 AM H?ctor Jos? C?rdenas Pacheco via
> bitcoin-dev <
> > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello all,
> >>
> >> I?ve been thinking about how OP_RETURN is being used to create and trade
> >> NFTs on Bitcoin (think RarePepes, SoG and other new ones) and was
> wondering
> >> if it?s possible to
> >>
> >
> > Do you have a link to any of these protocols?
> >
> > make transactions with this opcode via Lightning.
> >>
> >> More specific questions could be:
> >>
> >> 1. Can opcodes like OP_RETURN be inside a channel?s opening or
> >> closing transaction?
> >> 2. If so, could that OP_RETURN change hands within that channel or
> >> network of channels?
> >>
> >> OP_RETURNs do not have ownership according to the bitcoin network. It
> is
> > not hard to define a protocol that associates an OP_RETURN with
> ownership,
> > and ownership could then be transferred via lightning by sending
> associated
> > currency via lightning. Robustness improvements seem possible.
> >
> >
> >> 1. If possible, could the OP_RETURN be divisible? Could one person
> >> send a piece of a OP_RETURN just like one can do right now on the
> primary
> >> ledger or would it need to maintain the OP_RETURN code intact?
> >>
> >> OP_RETURNs themselves do not have ownership, but you can define a
> > protocol that gives them divisible ownership, including via lightning.
> >
> > I?m assuming that, if possible, this would need a protocol layer parallel
> >> to Bitcoin/Lightning that stores and reads all Bitcoin transactions and
> the
> >> ones which involve the node's channels as well as the ones with the
> >> OP_RETURN, just like CounterParty does right now with the primary
> ledger.
> >>
> >> Thank in advance.
> >> ??
> >>
> >> *H?ctor C?rdenas*@hcarpach
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> >> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lightning-dev mailing list
> > Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20211206/d86e56cb/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Lightning-dev Digest, Vol 76, Issue 4
> ********************************************
>
--
~ John Carvalho
Schedule: https://calendly.com/bitcoinerrorlog
Chat: https://t.me/bitcoinerrorlog
Social: https://twitter.com/bitcoinerrorlog
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20211206/e4816d2d/attachment.html>

2023-06-09 13:03:35

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2021-08-23
📝 Original message:
The dust limit is required to prevent massive UTXO expansion. The details
around miner incentives to process dust are irrelevant to this because
there simply needs to be a buffer of friction to prevent spamming the UTXO
set to be much, much larger, as an *attack* and long-term overhead on both
storage size and resources in purposing UTXO data within
applications/servers.
Even if I were wrong, it is still silly to propose changing a thing no one
actually needs or wants changed for any practical application.
It ain't broke, don't fix it.
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 7:00 AM <
lightning-dev-request at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Send Lightning-dev mailing list submissions to
> lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> lightning-dev-request at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> lightning-dev-owner at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Lightning-dev digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: [bitcoin-dev] Removing the Dust Limit (Jeremy)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 23:51:31 -0500
> From: Jeremy <jlrubin at mit.edu>
> To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> Cc: lightning-dev <lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> Subject: Re: [Lightning-dev] [bitcoin-dev] Removing the Dust Limit
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAD5xwhiEDa2KjF265iDZ1ism4AFzh3S3D4cJSESVVKNwv9L7zA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> one interesting point that came up at the bitdevs in austin today that
> favors remove that i believe is new to this discussion (it was new to me):
>
> the argument can be reduced to:
>
> - dust limit is a per-node relay policy.
> - it is rational for miners to mine dust outputs given their cost of
> maintenance (storing the output potentially forever) is lower than their
> immediate reward in fees.
> - if txn relaying nodes censor something that a miner would mine, users
> will seek a private/direct relay to the miner and vice versa.
> - if direct relay to miner becomes popular, it is both bad for privacy and
> decentralization.
> - therefore the dust limit, should there be demand to create dust at
> prevailing mempool feerates, causes an incentive to increase network
> centralization (immediately)
>
> the tradeoff is if a short term immediate incentive to promote network
> centralization is better or worse than a long term node operator overhead.
>
>
> ///////////////////
>
> my take is that:
>
> 1) having a dust limit is worse since we'd rather not have an incentive to
> produce or roll out centralizing software, whereas not having a dust limit
> creates an mild incentive for node operators to improve utreexo
> decentralizing software.
> 2) it's hard to quantify the magnitude of the incentives, which does
> matter.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20210819/831b9608/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Lightning-dev Digest, Vol 72, Issue 18
> *********************************************
>
--
~ John Carvalho
Schedule: https://calendly.com/bitcoinerrorlog
Chat: https://t.me/bitcoinerrorlog
Social: https://twitter.com/bitcoinerrorlog
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20210823/dfbbf45c/attachment.html>

2023-06-09 13:03:06

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2021-07-10
📝 Original message:
You can already embed a bitcoin address into an LN invoice. See example by
clicking “contribute” at https://thebiz.pro
Looks like this:
bitcoin:bc1qfzaj2jaqhq7yn9hy3c00ndat4lq9me7sdvgc4q?lightning=lnbc50u1pswjc7ppp5qddlvfgk6j8aj3p9c3r7ql5j40yntv30ydcw77a6r8vvxmpf9uzsdrq235x2gzzd9azcgznv4shxmmwyqcjcgz9wp5hxmmyv5srxzjtwf5hxare94xx26t8dqsy66twv45xzms2yq34g3jnxqc52vpncqzpgfppqfzaj2jaqhq7yn9hy3c00ndat4lq9me7ssp5ftd8uqjrdrycugwmq0v868vk0zyu9gntrlla3chr74d83hkdz78s9qyyssqahk0vjzc0yfd3faevtsg0rx6guyyw6mnjmsyw858xtsqp3l4k763jhct4k7q5ndpc4mkznuskzj00vqql8vxlfp6n54kskkc8qheseqqf38kwg
--
~ John Carvalho
Schedule: https://calendly.com/bitcoinerrorlog
Chat: https://t.me/bitcoinerrorlog
Social: https://twitter.com/bitcoinerrorlog
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20210710/99ff5eef/attachment.html>

2023-06-09 13:02:47

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2021-06-29
📝 Original message:
Thanks for instigating this, Rusty! 0conf/turbo channels have been hackable
for a long time, and we would love to unlock new user experiences for our
platforms with it, formally if possible.
0conf is desired by every wallet, every LN exchange, and truly shows off
something only LN can uniquely offer as a UX.
We are happy to support how we can, and answer any questions from the
trenches.
On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 8:34 AM Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> John Carvalo recently pointed out that not every implementation
> accepts zero-conf channels, but they are useful. Roasbeef also recently
> noted that they're not spec'd.
>
> How do you all do it? Here's a strawman proposal:
>
> 1. Assign a new feature bit "I accept zeroconf channels".
> 2. If both negotiate this, you can send update_add_htlc (etc) *before*
> funding_locked without the peer getting upset.
> 3. Nodes are advised *not* to forward HTLCs from an unconfirmed channel
> unless they have explicit reason to trust that node (they can still
> send *out* that channel, because that's not their problem!).
>
> It's a pretty simple change, TBH (this zeroconf feature would also
> create a new set of channel_types, altering that PR).
>
> I can draft something this week?
>
> Thanks!
> Rusty.
>
--
~ John Carvalho
Schedule: https://calendly.com/bitcoinerrorlog
Chat: https://t.me/bitcoinerrorlog
Social: https://twitter.com/bitcoinerrorlog
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20210629/9dd76388/attachment.html>

2023-06-09 13:01:22

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2020-10-14
📝 Original message:
Regarding putting trust on the table as a design solution to possible
attacks that aren't happening, wouldn't it be wise to start with whatever
trust solutions common networks already use and mutate that to this
situation?
Example: KYC, black/whitelisting, reputation scoring, permissioned/private
subnets, scoring/tiers
Of course, none of us actually want to design formal KYC into LN, but it
really is the same premise: "identifying" your counterparty and assessing
the amount of risk you would like to allocate. Permissioned access, reduced
public listening, out-of-band credentialing, etc, etc.
Networking issues like these might not even be appropriate to be handled at
the LN level. Possibly better to use a multipurpose context layer (gets
into ID systems, namespaces, WoTs).
Sorry if I'm oversimplifying the topic, but it is frustrating to watch devs
argue about the edge of an edge of a knife no one is using, and then
bikeshed every imperfection...
Cryptographic punishment schemes aren't swiss army knives.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20201014/c6636dc0/attachment.html>

2023-06-09 12:41:05

- reply

2023-06-09 12:40:38

- reply

2023-06-09 12:40:21

- reply