> bLIPs have a slightly different process than BIPs, as well as a different set
> of editors/maintainers (more widely distributed). As we saw with the Speedy
> Trial saga (fingers crossed), the sole (?) maintainer of the BIP process was
> able to effectively steelman the progression of an author
BOLTs should be BIPs too. Ideally, the authors should be the ones to migrate
them, but mirroring is fine - just nobody's taken the time to do it yet.
Please stop promoting lies about the BIP repo. I did not "steelman" anything.
Adding a third BIP editor more involved with Lightning sounds like
> But they don't address the first point at all, they instead work around
> it. To be fair, I don't think we can completely address that first point:
> properly reviewing spec proposals takes a lot of effort and accepting
> complex changes to the BOLTs shouldn't be done lightly.
I think this is
> BIPs are already the Bazaar style of evolution that simultaneously
> allows flexibility and coordination/interoperability (since anyone can
> BIP and they create an environment of discussion).
The answer to why not BIPs here applies to BOLTs as well, as bLIPs are
On 6/29/21 01:34, Rusty Russell wrote:
John Carvalo recently pointed out that not every implementation
accepts zero-conf channels, but they are useful. Roasbeef also recently
noted that they're not spec'd.
How do you all do it? Here's a strawman proposal:
Here's another feature which just appeared and would benefit from a
bLIP for compatibility:
Atomic splitting of bills. A very small thing, but also very cool. I
can't imagine it fitting in the BOLTs at all.
Thanks for starting that discussion.
In my opinion, what we're really trying to address here are the two
points (at least from the point of view of someone who works on the spec and
- Implementers get frustrated when they've worked on something that they