Re: [Lightning-dev] bLIPs: A proposal for community-driven app layer and protocol extension stand

2021-07-02 Thread Luke Dashjr
Yes, many systems doesn't really make sense. We can add editors and revise the BIP process as needed (BOLTs might prefer to use markdown?). Even aside from Lightning BIPs, there are several improvements that can be made, so it makes sense to address everything at once.

Re: [Lightning-dev] bLIPs: A proposal for community-driven app layer and protocol extension standardization

2021-07-01 Thread Luke Dashjr
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

Re: [Lightning-dev] bLIPs: A proposal for community-driven app layer and protocol extension standardization

2021-06-30 Thread Luke Dashjr
Or just use BIPs instead of further fracturing...? On Jun 30, 2021 10:10 AM, Ryan Gentry via Lightning-dev wrote: > > Hi all, > > > The recent thread around zero-conf channels [1] provides an opportunity to > discuss how the BOLT process handles features and best practices that arise > in the

Re: [Lightning-dev] [bitcoin-dev] On the scalability issues of onboarding millions of LN mobile clients

2020-05-05 Thread Luke Dashjr
On Tuesday 05 May 2020 10:17:37 Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Trust-minimization of Bitcoin security model has always relied first and > above on running a full-node. This current paradigm may be shifted by LN > where fast, affordable, confidential, censorship-resistant payment services >

Re: [Lightning-dev] proposal for Lightning Network improvement proposals

2018-07-22 Thread Luke Dashjr
Lightning is covered by BIPs already. There's no need for a separate repository, and the existing BOLTs should be submitted to the BIPs repository too. On Sunday 22 July 2018 13:45:21 René Pickhardt via Lightning-dev wrote: > Hey everyone, > > in the grand tradition of BIPs I propose that we

Re: [Lightning-dev] [bitcoin-dev] BIP sighash_noinput

2018-07-03 Thread Luke Dashjr
On Monday 02 July 2018 18:11:54 Gregory Maxwell wrote: > I know it seems kind of silly, but I think it's somewhat important > that the formal name of this flag is something like > "SIGHASH_REPLAY_VULNERABLE" or likewise or at least > "SIGHASH_WEAK_REPLAYABLE". This is because noinput is materially