Skip to content
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

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Feb 10, 2021

Conversation

harding
Copy link
Collaborator

@harding harding commented Feb 8, 2021

My 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.

@harding harding marked this pull request as ready for review February 8, 2021 17:26
Copy link
Collaborator

@jonatack jonatack left a 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
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
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

Copy link
Collaborator Author

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
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
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
Copy link
Collaborator

@jonatack jonatack Feb 8, 2021

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...")

Suggested change
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
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
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".
Copy link
Collaborator

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 ;)

Suggested change
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"
Copy link
Collaborator

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 ;)

Suggested change
of manually added peers, peers using [BIP152][] "high-bandwidth"
of manually added peers, peers using [BIP152][] "high bandwidth"

Copy link
Collaborator

@jonatack jonatack Feb 8, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The update also adds the connection types. Example (with I2P peers, high bandwidth peers, the works):

Screenshot from 2021-02-09 00-13-35

_posts/en/newsletters/2021-02-10-newsletter.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@harding
Copy link
Collaborator Author

harding commented Feb 9, 2021

Pushed edits and additional content, and reviewed everyone else's contributions (thanks!).

Copy link
Contributor

@bitschmidty bitschmidty left a 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
Copy link
Contributor

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
Copy link
Contributor

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?

@bitschmidty
Copy link
Contributor

ACK 394e7c3

Copy link
Contributor

@jnewbery jnewbery left a 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
Copy link
Contributor

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/

Copy link
Collaborator Author

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).

Copy link
Contributor

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
Copy link
Contributor

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
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should be 774

@bitschmidty bitschmidty force-pushed the 2021-02-10-newsletter branch from 504cd5c to 82e73a8 Compare February 10, 2021 13:41
@bitschmidty bitschmidty merged commit a9e762f into bitcoinops:master Feb 10, 2021
@bitschmidty
Copy link
Contributor

Squashed and merged!

Thanks to our authors @jonatack @adamjonas @harding @dongcarl @xekyo for a beefy newsletter this week and to @jnewbery and @jonatack on the reviews

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants