Agenda: Speaker 0: Are we on the pathfinding one or did we pass that? Speaker 1: I think [redacted] should be attending because they added their new gossip status thing to the agenda. I think they should join soon, but we can start with the verification, where I think it just needs more review t...

Agenda: Speaker 0: How do you do MPP by the way? For example, you have two blinded paths. You don't even split inside the path. Speaker 1: We won't MPP. Our new routing rewrite — which is on the back burner while I sort all this out — should be able to MPP across because they give you the capaci...

Agenda: Speaker 0: So the next one is go see 12-blocks delay channel closed follow-up. So, this is something we already merged something to a spec, saying that whenever you see a channel being spent on-chain, you should wait for 12 blocks to allow splicing to happen. It's just one line that was m...

Agenda: Speaker 0: Cool. Okay. They have four or five things that I think are all in line with what we have already as well. First one is the spec-clean up. Last thing we did, I think we reverted one of the gossip changes, and that is going to be in LND 18. Basically, making the feature bits to be...

Agenda: Speaker 1: Yeah, we did a point release to undo it as well. What I'd like to do is to write up the spec changes to basically say: Yeah, don't set the bit if you don't have anything interesting to say — rather than if you don't support it. Yes, my sweep through the network to go: Hey, there...

NOTE: There were some issues with the recording of this call, resulting in a partial transcript. Speaker 0: If you're only connected to a single peer, it makes sense not to tell them that you speak gossip, right? Because you won't have anything interesting to say, and you don't want to — with our c...

Agenda: Speaker 0: So first item, I just wanted to highlight that I opened the PR for zero reserve, if you want to look at it. I don't know if people are actually trying to implement that. It matches the implementation that we have currently in Eclair and Phoenix, but with a different feature bit....

Agenda: Speaker 0: [redacted] said they won't be able to attend, but they’ve nicely created an agenda for us as usual. So I can take a look and run through the list. First up, so I think this has sort of went back and forth a few times. This is the very long-lived request to just have a zero value...

Agenda: Speaker 0: First of all, it looks like we still have a mailing list. I don't know how much we can rely on that. But, in the meanwhile, nobody has sent any email on the mailing list. I guess we should be migrating to Delving Bitcoin for now. Has someone experimented with running a discourse...

Agenda: Speaker 0: We won't have posting for the mailing list anymore in one month and a half, so we should probably do something. My plan was to just wait to see what bitcoin-dev would do and do the same thing. Does someone have opinions on that or an idea on what we should do? Speaker 1: Who's ...

Agenda: Speaker 0: I moved the first item on the to-do list today, dual funding, because we finally have interop between C-Lightning and Eclair. We were only missing the reestablished part, and everything was mostly okay from the beginning. It looks like the spec seems to be clear enough because w...

Agenda: Speaker 0: Alright. So, I guess the first item is something that has already been ACKed and is only one clarification. But I had one question on the PR. I was wondering, [redacted], for which feature you actually use that code because neither LND or Eclair handles — we just disconnect on a...

Agenda: Speaker 0: So, [redacted] pointed out that we did not do this, and we have to do this. I've been working on the code so that you have to push their commitment transaction. Now, there are several problems with this. One is that in many states, there are two possible commitment transactions ...

Agenda: Speaker 0: I don't think I've seen any discussion happening on any of the PRs. So, I don't think we should go and have them in order, except maybe the first one that we may want to just finalize and get something into the spec to say that it should be 2016 everywhere. But, as [redacted] wa...

Agenda: Speaker 0: Alright, should we start? I want to talk a quick update on dual funding because I've been working with [redacted] on cross-compatibility tests between Core Lightning and Eclair, and so far, everything looks good. The only part that has not yet been fully implemented in CLN is th...

Agenda: Speaker 0: Great. I guess, does anyone have any urgent stuff that we want to make sure we get to in the meeting today? If not, I'm just going to go ahead and start working down the recently updated proposal seeking review list. Great. Okay. First up on the list is option simple close. This...

Agenda: Speaker 0: Alright. Does anyone want to volunteer to take us through the list? Nope? Okay. I will read the issue that [Redacted] very kindly left for us then. The first item on the list is Bolt 8’s chaining keys clarification. Is there anything we need to talk about here? Speaker 1: Yeah....

Agenda: Speaker 0: Thanks [Redacted]. So, there isn't much that has changed on any of the PRs that are on the pending to-do list, except for attributable errors. So, maybe since [Redacted] is here, we can start with attributable errors, and [Redacted], you can tell us what has changed about the HM...

Agenda: Speaker 0: Alright, so let's start. So, the first PR on the list is one we've already discussed last week. It just needs someone from another team, either Lightning Labs or LDK to hack. It's just a clarification on Bolt 8. So, I don't think it should be reviewed right now because just take...

Agenda: Speaker 1: So, the first PR we have on the list is a clarification on Bolt 8 by [Redacted]. It looks like, if I understand correctly, someone tried to reimplement Bolt 8 and got it wrong, and it's only clarifications. Is that correct? Speaker 2: Yes. So LN message - a JavaScript library t...

Agenda: Speaker 0: First off of the list is dual funding. [Redacted] has merged the two small patches that we had discussed adding. There's only one small patch that is remaining, which is about making the TLV signed to allow for future splicing to make sure that splicing can also use the RBF mess...

Agenda: Speaker 0: Alright, so first thing I've got on deck is 1066, which says: Correct final CLTV handling and blinded paths. Speaker 1: Yeah, I haven't dug as deep into the blinded path stuff, so this may be an incorrect reading that I was confused to. Basically, for a blinded path, we don't h...

Name: Lightning specification call Topic: Agenda below Location: Jitsi Video: No video posted online Agenda: Speaker 0: A few people won't be able to attend. I guess we can proceed. Okay. I'm going to go down the list that you prepared for this. The first thing being dual funding. I don't know...

Name: Lightning specification call Topic: Agenda below Location: Jitsi Video: No video posted online Agenda: The conversation has been anonymized by default to protect the identities of the participants. Participants that wish to be attributed are welcome to propose changes to the transcript. ...

Name: Lightning specification call Topic: Agenda below Location: Jitsi Video: No video posted online Agenda: # BOLT 4: Remove legacy format, make var_onion_optin compulsory I think eclair and c-lightning have both removed support for legacy payments. I’ll probably make a PR to add the feat...

Name: Lightning specification call Topic: Agenda below Location: Jitsi Video: No video posted online Agenda: # Organizing a Lightning Core Dev meetup I was talking about organizing a face to face Lightning Core Dev meetup. If I understand correctly there has only been one formal one and that ...

Name: Lightning specification call Topic: Agenda below Location: Jitsi Video: No video posted online Agenda: # Bitcoin Core funding a transaction without looking at ancestors I have something that I wanted to ask of our implementers who implemented a wallet. It is tangentially related to Ligh...

Name: Lightning specification call Topic: Agenda below Location: Jitsi Video: No video posted online Agenda: # Introduction When people put comments and they are fixed they should mark them as resolved so that we don’t waste time thinking there are lots of outstanding comments and we have to ...

Name: Lightning specification call Topic: Agenda below Location: Google Meet Video: No video posted online Agenda: The conversation has been anonymized by default to protect the identities of the participants. Those who have given permission for their comments to be attributed are attributed. ...

Name: Lightning specification call Topic: Agenda below Location: Google Meet Video: No video posted online Agenda: The conversation has been anonymized by default to protect the identities of the participants. Those who have given permission for their comments to be attributed are attributed. ...