-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 131
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Newsletters: add 135 (2021-02-10) #515
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
First almost-read-through. Will re-read to-morrow. Some very minor comments; feel free to ignore!
layout: newsletter | ||
lang: en | ||
--- | ||
This week's newsletter links to the summary of last week's taproot |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This week's newsletter links to the summary of last week's taproot | |
This week's newsletter links to a summary of last week's taproot |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Other people have written summaries (e.g. Folkson's email links to Rusty Russell's toot summary), so I think "a" is the most appropriate article here.
--- | ||
This week's newsletter links to the summary of last week's taproot | ||
activation meeting and announces another scheduled meeting for next | ||
week, plus describes recent progress in discreet log contracts and a new |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
week, plus describes recent progress in discreet log contracts and a new | |
week, plus it describes recent progress in discreet log contracts and a new |
deployment about one year subsequently. | ||
|
||
More controversial was whether the `LockinOnTimeout` (LOT) parameter | ||
should be set to *true* (requiring miners either eventually signal |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
probably fine as-is, but for similar construction as the next clause ("allowing miners to signal...")
should be set to *true* (requiring miners either eventually signal | |
should be set to *true* (requiring miners to either eventually signal |
arguments he's seen for the two different options and announcing a | ||
follow-up meeting to discuss them (and some less controversial | ||
issues) in the Freenode ##taproot-activation channel on February | ||
16th at 19:00 UTC |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
16th at 19:00 UTC | |
16th at 19:00 UTC. |
adaptors][topic adaptor signatures], effective compression algorithms | ||
for DLCs contingent on numeric outcomes, and support for k-of-n | ||
threshold signing from oracles "even supporting numeric cases where | ||
some bounded difference is permitted between oracles". |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
feel free to ignore, but (and see line 207 below ;)
some bounded difference is permitted between oracles". | |
some bounded difference is permitted between oracles." |
|
||
- [Bitcoin Core #20764][] adds additional information to the output | ||
produced using `bitcoin-cli -netinfo`. New details include the number | ||
of manually added peers, peers using [BIP152][] "high-bandwidth" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah nice!
I know the BIP writes it with the hyphen, but while adding High Bandwidth
to the GUI peer details in bitcoin-core/gui#206, I realized that it's incorrect/poor style (and will fix in the -netinfo docs in the next change ;)
of manually added peers, peers using [BIP152][] "high-bandwidth" | |
of manually added peers, peers using [BIP152][] "high bandwidth" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Pushed edits and additional content, and reviewed everyone else's contributions (thanks!). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
lgtm (sans BIPs #1048 and topic entries)
deployment about one year subsequently. | ||
|
||
More controversial was whether the `LockinOnTimeout` (LOT) parameter | ||
should be set to *true* (requiring miners either eventually signal |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
s/should/should, by default,
(with witnesses). Version 2 is required to reconstruct segwit | ||
blocks. Segwit was activated in August 2017, so providing version 1 | ||
pre-segwit compact blocks to peers is no longer useful; without the | ||
witnesses, peers are unable to validate the consensus rules on |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"validate the consensus rules on them" sounds awkward to me. "of them", "against them" maybe?
ACK 394e7c3 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry for the very late review.
Just a few minor comments. One bad link.
- [HWI #433][] adds support for signing PSBTs with OP_RETURN outputs. | ||
|
||
- [Bitcoin Core #19509][] adds per-peer message capture between nodes as well | ||
as the ability to produce JSON outputs from those logs. Using the newly |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
s/produce JSON outputs from those logs/parse the dumped messages into JSON/
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I like it better the way it is (though I'd probably not have pluralized "outputs"; if that's your concern, we could possibly just drop that word without otherwise changing the sentence).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wanted to distinguish between logs (which I'd generally understand as a file that records specific events in the code) and what we have here, which is message dumps/message capture. It's not very important.
|
||
- [Bitcoin Core #19509][] adds per-peer message capture between nodes as well | ||
as the ability to produce JSON outputs from those logs. Using the newly | ||
introduced command line argument `capturemessages`, any message |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
s/capturemessages/-capturemessages/ (with dash)
warning that the use of non-English word lists is not widely supported | ||
and so is not recommended for implementation. | ||
|
||
- [Rust-Lightning #744][] adds support for fetching blocks and headers from |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should be 774
504cd5c
to
82e73a8
Compare
or @jnewberyBIPs #1048
@hardingHWI #433
@xekyoBitcoin Core #19509
@adamjonasRust-Lightning #744
@dongcarlMy stuff isn't finished on this yet, sorry, but I hope to get it done early Monday UTC-10. I suggest deferring reviews until I take this out of draft---I wanted to get the PR open so y'all'd be able to add your own contributions.