Newsletters: add 2018-07-10 #14
Conversation
|
Note: I checked the "allow edits from maintainers" box, so anyone with commit access should be able to push changes directly to https://github.com/harding/bitcoinops.github.io/tree/2018-07-10-newsletter Note that multiple people pushing to the same branch can get hairy fast. If you have to force-push, it's recommended to use |
| lang: en | ||
| version: 1 | ||
| --- | ||
| ## Welcome |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I suggest we remove the welcome / optech workshop sections.
| block efficiency for your node. | ||
|
|
||
| minrelaytxfee=0.00001000 | ||
| incrementalrelayfee=0.00001000 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think only minrelaytxfee needs to be set. incrementalrelayfee is for BIP125 replacement deltas.
| This didn't cause significant problems when fee estimates were high, | ||
| but now that fee estimates are near the default minimum relay fee of | ||
| 1 satoshi per byte, any transactions created with a fee slightly | ||
| below that aren't being relayed to miners and so remain unconfirmed |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Changing aren't being to may not be, since transactions may be relayed depending on node policy.
|
I've added some commits:
@harding @moneyball - I'd appreciate some review before I send this out tomorrow if possible. |
| single-sig and increasing their privacy by making multisig look like | ||
| single-sig. However, the scheme requires multistep interaction | ||
| between the wallets participating in the multisig, both for creating | ||
| the public key and the signature. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Non-blocking, but it may be worth noting that this functionality creates huge fee incentives for exchanges et al to start batching withdrawals.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah nevermind - this isn't actually the case (as you mention below) because we're still unable to aggregate a signature across inputs within a txn.
| (services that wait for something to happen in real life, like which | ||
| team wins the world cup, and then provide a signature committing to | ||
| that outcome, e.g. allowing Alice and Bob to settle a bet onchain or | ||
| in a LN channel). Many of these cases also improve efficiency |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Worth linking to the DLC paper (https://adiabat.github.io/dlc.pdf)?
| exposes you to bandwidth-wasting attacks and reduces BIP152 compact | ||
| block efficiency for your node. | ||
|
|
||
| minrelaytxfee=0.00001000 | ||
| incrementalrelayfee=0.00001000 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is wrong, the actual minimum feerate is the greater of those two settings. Consider the return for GetMinFee():
return std::max(CFeeRate(llround(rollingMinimumFeeRate)), incrementalRelayFee);
Also, the reason I think this is wrong is because I tried setting minrelaytxfee below the minimum on my node a few months ago and, after a day, I observed that I had no below-default-fee transactions. So I poked around and added incrementalrelayfee with the same setting, and within minutes started to receive below default-min transactions. Feel free to try the same experiment yourself.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hmmm, yes it looks like you're right, but I can't understand why that code is like that. I think it effectively makes incrementalrelayfee a floor for the minrelaytxfee.
It was changed here: bitcoin/bitcoin@7b1add3#diff-ca74c4b28865382863b8fe7633a85cd6R1084
I'm going to investigate whether that change was intentional. For now, I'll revert the newsletter to your version since that's the current behaviour.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this comment needs to be addressed: #14 (review)
Otherwise, edits through to eaeb29d LGTM with some fix-if-you-want nitpicks.
| - [**Merchant adoption**][bitrefill video] - [Sergej Kotliar][sergej], CEO of | ||
| Bitrefill gave a personal account of the fee market spike at the end of last | ||
| year, important UX considerations for Bitcoin and and lightning payments, and | ||
| Bitrefill's experiences in integrating lightning. I found this talk |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe clarify who "I" is here (maybe in the section introduction), or since there don't seem to be any other personal pronouns in this section, revise it out.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, you're right - will remove personal pronoun
| [patricia]: https://twitter.com/patestevao | ||
|
|
||
| - [**Blind Signatures in Sciptless Scripts**][blind signatures video] - | ||
| [Jonas Nick][jonas] spoke about using schnorr signatures as the basis |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think I used uppercase "Schnorr" in the earlier section about Wuille's proposed BIP, but this is lowercase. They should probably be consistently capitalized (I don't have a preference).
| This week's newsletter includes news and action items about minimum fees and | ||
| the upcoming Bitcoin Core release, a special feature on a Schnorr signature | ||
| proposal, and a write-up of the recent Building on Bitcoin conference in | ||
| Lisbon. *Divertam-se!* |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I had to Google "Divertam-se", which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it feels not quite right to me. Up to you if you want to keep it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You don't speak Portuguese? ;)
Will remove.
jnewbery
force-pushed
the
2018-07-10-newsletter
branch
from
eaeb29d to
0abdc42
Compare
|
Fixed @harding's comments. Will merge tomorrow and send the newsletter out in the morning. Thanks all! |
|
|
||
| - [**Merchant adoption**][bitrefill video] - [Sergej Kotliar][sergej], CEO of | ||
| Bitrefill gave a personal account of the fee market spike at the end of last | ||
| year, important UX considerations for Bitcoin and and lightning payments, and |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"and and" typo
Also there are several spellings of Lightning with a lower case l.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
FYI I attempted to make these changes myself in the GitHub editor, but I get a 404 when trying to create a PR...
|
Made edits suggested by @jamesob and @moneyball. Also gave it a final proofread on a local preview. Thanks! |
|
Merged. Thanks all! |
Newsletters: add #14 (2018-09-25)
No description provided.