From adce5c2807c863e8e7934e466127c4da23c005cd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Michael Folkson Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 14:15:44 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Updated BIP Process wishlist (markdown) --- BIP-Process-wishlist.md | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/BIP-Process-wishlist.md b/BIP-Process-wishlist.md index dd2bbc3..5e9188c 100644 --- a/BIP-Process-wishlist.md +++ b/BIP-Process-wishlist.md @@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ Developers may use these lists to estimate which BIPs have become de facto stand Versionbits assignments, Lightning extensions, BIP 39 word lists, etc could use some kind of additional number registries and/or document subdirectories. -==Bitcoin Core policy changes impacting Lightning/Layer 2 security guarantees== +==Default policy changes (e.g. V3), a recommendation but not an obligation for alternative implementations== + +To address problems such as pinning attacks on Lightning and multiparty protocols (e.g. vaults) there are and will continue to be draft proposals on changing the default policy rules in Bitcoin Core and/or alternative implementations. As these proposals are for default policy rules and **not** consensus rules there is absolutely no obligation for Bitcoin Core and/or alternative implementations to change their default policy rules nor users to run any particular policy rules (default or otherwise). The authors of these draft proposals are clearly recommending what they think the default policy rules should be and what policy rules users should run but it is merely a recommendation. There are a lot of moving parts, subtleties and complexities involved in designing default policy rules so any recommendation(s) to significantly upgrade default policy rules would benefit from being subject to a spec process. This would also aid the review of any policy related pull requests in Bitcoin Core and/or alternative implementations. An interesting recent case study was https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22665 and Bitcoin Core not implementing the exact wording of BIP 125 RBF. In this case (for various reasons) as a response Bitcoin Core just removed references to BIP 125 and started documenting the replacement to BIP 125 rules in the Bitcoin Core repo instead. However, it is my view that recommendations for default policy rules should be recommendations to all implementations, reviewed by Lightning and multiparty protocol developers (not just Bitcoin Core) and hence they would benefit from being standardized and being subject to a specification process. I will reiterate once again though that policy rules are **not** consensus rules. Consensus rules are much closer to an obligation as divergences from consensus rules risk the user being forked off the blockchain and could ultimately end up in network splits. -Bitcoin Core policy (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/tree/master/src/policy) changes can have unintended impact on Lightning/Layer 2 security and should (imo) be BIPed. Ideally policy guarantees would be in some way binding for Lightning/Layer 2 (brought up and requested on multiple occasions) but at the very least they should be discussed, communicated on the mailing list and BIPed. Interesting recent case study was https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22665 and Core not implementing the exact wording of BIP 125 RBF. In this case (for various reasons) it seems to be resolved by Core just removing references to BIP 125. \ No newline at end of file