Lightning Specification Meeting 2020/03/16

[t-bast]

The meeting will take place on Monday 2020/03/16 on IRC #lightning-dev. It is open to the public.

Pull Request Review

• Reply channel range simplification Reply channel range simplification #737
• BOLT11 additional and negative tests BOLT11 additional and negative tests #736
• TLV message extensions Bolt 1: Specify that extensions to existing messages must use TLV #754
• Stuck channels Avoid stuck channels after fee increase with additional reserve #740
• Wumbo advisory for scaling confirmations Add advisory section for wumbo channels confirmations #746

Long Term Updates

• Anchor outputs (@joostjager)
• Current status of the trampoline routing proposal (@t-bast)
• Rendez-vous (@cdecker)
• Blinded paths (@t-bast)
• Hornet (@cfromknecht)
• Protocol testing framework (@rustyrussell). See the tools/ and tests/events directories in lightning-rfc-protocol-test for details.

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.

• Upfront payments / DoS protection

---

Post-Meeting notes:

Action items

• Follow up on the edge case of a block filled with channel opens for Reply channel range simplification #737 (@Roasbeef @wpaulino)
• Rebase and merge BOLT11 additional and negative tests #736 (@rustyrussell)
• Finalize work on Avoid stuck channels after fee increase with additional reserve #740 (@halseth @joostjager @t-bast)
• Last pass on Bolt 1: Specify that extensions to existing messages must use TLV #754 then merge (@Roasbeef @t-bast)
• Make Add advisory section for wumbo channels confirmations #746 more high-level; the mention of scaling based on cumulative block reward is already too opinionated (@araspitzu)
• ALL: coordinate and setup a video chat to resolve the one vs two anchors discussion on Anchor outputs #688

The full logs can be found here

[joostjager]

• Anchor commitment format: one vs two anchors
• Channel jamming: is it a priority?

[t-bast]

Added anchor outputs. What's channel jamming?

[joostjager]

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2020-February/002547.html

[t-bast]

Gotcha, upfront payments/spam (why yet another name?). I'll add to the backlog.

[joostjager]

I think spam downplays the vulnerability. It sounds more like nuisance, not like taking a channel out of service for two weeks within a few minutes.

[t-bast]

True, this is really a potential denial-of-service

[joostjager]

Even denial-of-service suggests (to me at least) that it requires ongoing effort from the attacker. I think it is important to make a distinction between both classes of denial-of-service. With channel jamming the cost to the attacker is totally negligible compared to the damage done.