-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 160
Newsletters: add 90 (2020-03-25) #378
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
77cee97
Newsletters: add 90 (2020-03-25)
harding d1d0770
add Eclair 1339
adamjonas 255fc77
news90: add stackexchange
bitschmidty d435d8d
News90: add description of BOLTs 751
dongcarl 2b35d88
News77: post-publication correction for LND 3697
jnewbery File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,81 @@ | ||
| --- | ||
| title: 'Bitcoin Optech Newsletter #90' | ||
| permalink: /en/newsletters/2020/03/25/ | ||
| name: 2020-03-25-newsletter | ||
| slug: 2020-03-25-newsletter | ||
| type: newsletter | ||
| layout: newsletter | ||
| lang: en | ||
| --- | ||
| This week's newsletter summarizes several questions and answers from the | ||
| Bitcoin StackExchange and describes notable changes to popular Bitcoin | ||
| infrastructure projects. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Action items | ||
|
|
||
| *None this week.* | ||
|
|
||
| ## News | ||
|
|
||
| *No significant news about Bitcoin infrastructure development this week.* | ||
|
|
||
| ## Selected Q&A from Bitcoin StackExchange | ||
|
|
||
| *[Bitcoin StackExchange][bitcoin.se] is one of the first places Optech | ||
| contributors look for answers to their questions---or when we have a | ||
| few spare moments to help curious or confused users. In | ||
| this monthly feature, we highlight some of the top-voted questions and | ||
| answers posted since our last update.* | ||
|
|
||
| {% comment %}<!-- https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/search?tab=votes&q=created%3a1m..%20is%3aanswer -->{% | ||
| endcomment %} | ||
| {% assign bse = "https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/" %} | ||
|
|
||
| - [Why does the banscore default to 100?]({{bse}}93795) User Anonymous | ||
| describes some history behind `banscore`, which protects nodes | ||
| from misbehaving peers. Although some offenses result in a 100 | ||
| point increase---and thus the immediate banning of the offending peer under the default | ||
| `banscore` setting---other offenses detailed in | ||
| [`net_processing.cpp`][bitcoin net processing] have different scores. | ||
|
|
||
| - [Why is block 620826's timestamp 1 second before block 620825?]({{bse}}93696) | ||
| Andrew Chow and Raghav Sood clarify that a block header's timestamp field is not | ||
| required to have a greater value than previous blocks. The requirements are | ||
| instead that a new block's timestamp must be greater than the median | ||
| timestamp of the past 11 blocks but no later than two hours after the | ||
| present time according to the clock on the computer running the node. | ||
|
|
||
| - [Where can I find the miniscript policy language specification?]({{bse}}93764) | ||
| Andrew Chow and Pieter Wuille explain that there is not a specification for how | ||
| the [miniscript][topic miniscript] policy language is compiled to miniscript and | ||
| that both the current C++ and Rust implementations effectively try every | ||
| possibility and choose the miniscript resulting in the smallest `scriptWitness` size. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Notable code and documentation changes | ||
|
|
||
| *Notable changes this week in [Bitcoin Core][bitcoin core repo], | ||
| [C-Lightning][c-lightning repo], [Eclair][eclair repo], [LND][lnd repo], | ||
| [libsecp256k1][libsecp256k1 repo], [Bitcoin Improvement Proposals | ||
| (BIPs)][bips repo], and [Lightning BOLTs][bolts repo].* | ||
|
|
||
| - [Eclair #1339][] prevents users from setting their htlc-minimum | ||
| amount to 0 milli-satoshis, which would violate [BOLT2][].<!-- "A | ||
| receiving node [...] receiving an `amount_msat` equal to 0 [...] | ||
| SHOULD fail the channel." --> The new minimum is 1 milli-satoshi. | ||
|
|
||
| - [LND #4051][] tracks up to ten errors per peer, storing them across | ||
| reconnections if necessary. The latest error message is returned as | ||
| part of the `ListPeers` results, making it easier to diagnose | ||
| problems. | ||
|
|
||
| - [BOLTs #751][] updates [BOLT7][] to allow nodes to announce multiple | ||
| IP addresses of a given type (e.g. IPv4, IPv6, or Tor). This ensures | ||
| that multi-homed nodes can better inform the network of their network | ||
| connectivity. Several LN implementations were already announcing or | ||
| allowing multiple addresses of a given type, so this change brings the | ||
| BOLT specification in line with what the implementations were already | ||
| doing. | ||
|
|
||
| {% include references.md %} | ||
| {% include linkers/issues.md issues="1339,3697,4051,751" %} | ||
| [bitcoin net processing]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/net_processing.cpp | ||
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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 don't like 'it seems that', which suggests doubt on our part, whereas we know for a fact that LND and Eclair were announcing multiple addresses of the same type and c-lightning was accepting them. How about changing this to: