Skip to content
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

Newsletters: add 49 (2019-06-05) #150

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jun 5, 2019

Conversation

harding
Copy link
Contributor

@harding harding commented May 31, 2019

No description provided.

@harding harding force-pushed the 2019-06-05-newsletter branch from 081248c to 51f8860 Compare May 31, 2019
@moneyball
Copy link
Contributor

@moneyball moneyball commented May 31, 2019

tACK 51f8860

@harding

This comment has been minimized.

[bech32 easy]: {{news38}}#bech32-sending-support
[news48 coshv]: {{news48}}#proposed-transaction-output-commitments
[alt-coshv]: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2019-June/016997.html
[kotliar ln]: /{% comment %}<!-- FIXME -->{% endcomment %}
Copy link
Contributor Author

@harding harding Jun 3, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have the URL for his, but the video is marked private and I don't think we want to release it until shortly before publication, so this is a FIXME for now.

@moneyball
Copy link
Contributor

@moneyball moneyball commented Jun 3, 2019

utACK 6982a49

Fantastic description of Erlay!

Copy link
Contributor

@jnewbery jnewbery left a comment

Looks great. I've left a bunch of nits inline.

We were going to include a blurb for the review club (https://bitcoin-core-review-club.github.io/) this week. Would you like me to write that?


After describing the Erlay protocol, the paper analyzes its performance
using both a simulated network of 60,000 nodes (similar in number and use to
the current Bitcoin network) and a live set of 100 nodes spread Internationally
Copy link
Contributor

@jnewbery jnewbery Jun 4, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

s/Internationally/internationally

(or "spread across datacenters in several countries")


Having established that the protocol is a worthwhile efficiency
improvement, the paper considers the most important of its secondary aspects:
its effect on privacy. Bitcoin Core currently implements artificial delays
Copy link
Contributor

@jnewbery jnewbery Jun 4, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

s/artificial/randomized/ ?

incoming connections, Erlay always performed as well or better than the current
protocol. In cases where the spy nodes were private nodes making connections
to honest nodes, Erlay sometimes performed better and sometimes performed
worse---but never more than 10% worse (and then in an unlikely situation). <!--
Copy link
Contributor

@jnewbery jnewbery Jun 4, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Consider removing or rewording "(and then in an unlikely situation)."

notes that an increase in the number of outbound peers from 8 to 32 would only
increase the bandwidth used by a node to announce the existence of new
transactions by 32% with Erlay compared to 300% using the current protocol.
<!-- figure 10 --> Note, as described in the paragraph above about Erlay's two
Copy link
Contributor

@jnewbery jnewbery Jun 4, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Remove "Note, "

to 8 peers, but nodes would perform set reconciliation with 32 peers.
A four-fold increase in the number of outbound peers could improve the
probability that each node makes a connection to at least one honest peer that
is itself well connected. Without reliable connections between honest peers,
Copy link
Contributor

@jnewbery jnewbery Jun 4, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Consider removing "Without reliable connections..." to the end of the paragraph. I think we can assume our readership understands the importance of having one well-connected honest peer.


- **COSHV proposal replaced:** the author of the COSHV proposal we described
[last week][news48 coshv] has replaced it with a [similar
proposal][alt-coshv] (under a different name). The new proposal checks more
Copy link
Contributor

@jnewbery jnewbery Jun 4, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: remove parentheses

allowing a single input is still recommended to avoid unwanted interactions).

Except for the new name, the changes don't affect the summary of COSHV we
wrote last week. However, the changes do affect some additional material about
Copy link
Contributor

@jnewbery jnewbery Jun 4, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd remove this sentence. I know we announced it last week. We could:

  1. keep this sentence here.
  2. remove this sentence, and add a note to the tween announcing the newsletter "Due to the fast-changing nature of the OP_COSHV proposal, we are not including the 'advanced use cases' of OP_COSHV we announced last week. We will continue to cover OP_COSHV as the proposal matures." or similar.
  3. just remove this sentence.

I prefer (2) or (3).

We could also remove "In next week’s newsletter, we’ll look at some other ways COSHV could be used to improve efficiency, privacy, or both." from the website version of last week's newsletter.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@harding harding Jun 4, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I did (3). I don't know what "tween" means in (2), but it also seems predicated on removing this sentence, so I went with that. If I'm not around, please feel free to add a note (or not).

As for editing last week's newsletter, I wouldn't feel comfortable making a substantial edit like that without leaving a note about the edit, which I think would kinda defeat the purpose.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@harding harding Jun 4, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I figured out "tween" probably means "tweet". I think tweeting that initially is unnecessary, but that it'd be good for any one of us to tweet something like that in reply to anyone asking about the previously-announced text.

Copy link
Contributor

@jnewbery jnewbery Jun 4, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes s/tween/tweet/

Copy link
Contributor

@jnewbery jnewbery Jun 5, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I wouldn't feel comfortable making a substantial edit like that without leaving a note about the edit, which I think would kinda defeat the purpose.

I feel comfortable making edits to old newsletters on the website that make them more accurate/clearer for readers, since I see them as a more permanent resource. We can discuss more over the IRC.

- **COSHV proposal replaced:** the author of the COSHV proposal we described
[last week][news48 coshv] has replaced it with a [similar
proposal][alt-coshv] (under a different name). The new proposal checks more
than just the hash of a transaction's outputs, now it includes the transaction's
Copy link
Contributor

@jnewbery jnewbery Jun 4, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: replace the comma with a -, ;, or and now also includes...

than just the hash of a transaction's outputs, now it includes the transaction's
version number, number of inputs, sequence numbers, and locktime. This
change eliminates concerns related to transaction malleability that would've
affected using the opcode with some types of payment channels (such as those
Copy link
Contributor

@jnewbery jnewbery Jun 4, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: shorten this to "using the opcode with Lightning Network and other contract proposals."


- [LND #2985][] waits to relay gossip announcements until there are there are
at least ten of them to send and five seconds have elapsed since the previous
batch, reducing bandwidth overhead.
Copy link
Contributor

@jnewbery jnewbery Jun 4, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe note that as the number of channels on the lightning network has increased, all LN implementations have had to do work to handle gossip messages efficiently (eg LND 2538, c-lighning 2297 and eclair 948)

@jnewbery jnewbery changed the title [WIP] Newsletters: add 48 (2019-06-05) [WIP] Newsletters: add 49 (2019-06-05) Jun 4, 2019
@harding harding changed the title [WIP] Newsletters: add 49 (2019-06-05) Newsletters: add 49 (2019-06-05) Jun 4, 2019
@harding
Copy link
Contributor Author

@harding harding commented Jun 4, 2019

Pushed edits for @jnewbery feedback (thanks!) and some final small edits of my own. Unless there's any additional feedback, the only todo is adding the link to Kotliar's video.

@jnewbery
Copy link
Contributor

@jnewbery jnewbery commented Jun 5, 2019

ACK 3da641d

@harding is going to add a 'Bitcoin Core Review Club' blurb, then I think it's ready for @bitschmidty to squash and merge.

@jnewbery
Copy link
Contributor

@jnewbery jnewbery commented Jun 5, 2019

I've moved the 'Optech recommends' section further up (in my mind the regular weekly sections 'bech32 support' and 'notable commits' fit together), and reworded slightly to remove the repeated 'established' and the names of the contributors.

utACK 83e1be1 once the commits have been squashed

@jnewbery
Copy link
Contributor

@jnewbery jnewbery commented Jun 5, 2019

ACK 57c95b7

🚢 it!

@bitschmidty
Copy link
Contributor

@bitschmidty bitschmidty commented Jun 5, 2019

squashed commits to a single commit and force-pushed

@bitschmidty bitschmidty merged commit a6dd157 into bitcoinops:master Jun 5, 2019
2 checks passed
@bitschmidty
Copy link
Contributor

@bitschmidty bitschmidty commented Jun 5, 2019

we are merged! thanks @harding for another great newsletter. cheers to @jnewbery for reviewing

harding pushed a commit to harding/bitcoinops.github.io that referenced this issue May 22, 2021
bitschmidty pushed a commit to harding/bitcoinops.github.io that referenced this issue May 26, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants