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

2018-07-23 Thread Olaoluwa Osuntokun
> My concerns are mainly about assignment of values for types and feature > bits, and how we can test new features without conflicting with other > developers. There're enough feature bits that one can likely just pick a random high number, and start to roll out their experiment in the wild. If a

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

2018-07-22 Thread Olaoluwa Osuntokun
No need to apologize! Perhaps this confusion shows that the current process surrounding creating/modifying/drafting BOLT documents does indeed need to be better documented. We've more or less been rolling along with a pretty minimal process among the various implementations which I'd say has

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

2018-07-22 Thread René Pickhardt via Lightning-dev
Sorry did not realized that BOLTs are the equivalent - and aparently many people I spoke to also didn't realize that. I thought BOLT is the protocol specification and the bolts are just the sections. And the BOLT should be updated to a new version. Also I suggested that this should take place

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

2018-07-22 Thread Olaoluwa Osuntokun
We already have the equiv of improvement proposals: BOLTs. Historically new standardization documents are proposed initially as issues or PR's when ultimately accepted. Why do we need another repo? On Sun, Jul 22, 2018, 6:45 AM René Pickhardt via Lightning-dev <

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