LNPBPs VS bolts

This version for the first time represents reference implementation for R1 version of client-side-validation standards, organized in separate sublibraries/rust crates: - 📦 Strict encoding (LNPBP-7 and LNPBP-42 standards): binary standard of encoding client-side-validated data and network addresses. - 📦 Commit-verify client-side-validation-specific APIs, including * consensus commitments (part of LNPBP-8 standard) * multi-commitments (LNPBP-4 standard) * merklization for client-side-validation (LNPBP-81 standard) - 📦 Single-use-seals API (LNPBP-8 standard) - 📦 Client-side-validation API from the library root, linking those components together according to LNPBP-9 standard.

True although I'm not talking about Ethereum smart contracts, I'm talking about Bitcoin ones which are very limited and not Turing complete. The lightning smart contract is like 20 lines and has been live since 2018, I feel the probability of the contract getting hacked is very low(famous last words!) https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/03-transactio...

LN is a protocol for sending signed txns around, keeping track of balances locally, and broadcasting channel open/close/justice txns. All the rules are outlined in the foundational BOLTs https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/00-introduction.md

BOLT12 offers an attempt to achieve some of the core functionality that LNURL provides without requiring the use of a web server. An offer encodes the data necessary to reach a node to request an invoice to make a payment, either a node_id, or a blinded path (the last few hops in an onion route, pre-computed and encrypted) to that node using onion messages. It also can encode a minimum amount for a payment, the currency being paid in, an expiry time and minimum/maximum quantity numbers (for purchasing multiple items).

In practice, I do not know if this is possible. I am quite unfamiliar with Bitcoin OpCode scripting and if the revocation tree of the channel state (which is just an unpublished Bitcoin contract) is expressive enough to allow inputting an arbitrary address to recieve the attacker's funds. I am attempting to use this documentation as a clue to whether or not, and how this might be possible: https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/03-transactions.md.

No they can't, that's the whole point of onion routing. The next hop doesn't know if the packet started with you or if you're just another node in the payment path.

Reference: https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/04-onion-rout...

There is a discussion to add to the lightning BOLT specification for 'inbound fees' which essentially enables a 'rebate' for using a particular channel to route through your node.

Basis Of Lightning Technology BOLT specificiations

tbh i have a text file with definitions of many of these because I constantly confuse them, most of which were pulled from using search at https://github.com/lightning/bolts and similar