-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 146
Newsletters: add 79 (2020-01-08) #312
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
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,103 @@ | ||
| --- | ||
| title: 'Bitcoin Optech Newsletter #79' | ||
| permalink: /en/newsletters/2020/01/08/ | ||
| name: 2020-01-08-newsletter | ||
| slug: 2020-01-08-newsletter | ||
| type: newsletter | ||
| layout: newsletter | ||
| lang: en | ||
| --- | ||
| This week's newsletter summarizes the final week of the organized | ||
| taproot review, describes a discussion about coinjoin mixing without | ||
| either equal value inputs or outputs, and mentions a proposal to encode | ||
| output script descriptors in end-user interfaces. Also included is our | ||
| regular section about notable changes to popular Bitcoin infrastructure | ||
| projects. | ||
|
|
||
| {% comment %}<!-- include references.md below the fold but above any Jekyll/Liquid variables-->{% endcomment %} | ||
| {% include references.md %} | ||
|
|
||
| ## Action items | ||
|
|
||
| - Bitcoin Optech is planning to hold a third Schnorr and Taproot | ||
| seminar workshop in London on February 5th 2020. This will cover | ||
| the same material as the previous two [Schnorr/Taproot workshops][], | ||
| which is available on this website for home study. | ||
|
|
||
| **Member companies who would like to send engineers to the workshop should | ||
| [email Optech][optech email]**. | ||
|
|
||
| ## News | ||
|
|
||
| - **Final week of organized taproot review:** December 17th was the | ||
| final scheduled [meeting][taproot meeting] of the taproot review | ||
| group. Pieter Wuille posted the [slides][wuille slides] from a | ||
| presentation he gave summarizing progress, including text indicating | ||
| he thought the proposal was "nearly ready". Wuille also proposed a | ||
| [minor change][wuille suggestion] to the tapleaf versioning. Also | ||
| briefly mentioned was the [discussion][zmn post] started by ZmnSCPxj | ||
| on the Lightning-Dev mailing list about how precisely taproot could be | ||
| integrated with LN to provide improved privacy and scalability. | ||
|
|
||
| - **Coinjoins without equal value inputs or outputs:** Adam Ficsor | ||
| (nopara73) started a [discussion][ficsor non-equal] on the Bitcoin-Dev | ||
| mailing list about two previously-published papers ([1][cashfusion], | ||
| [2][knapsack]) describing coinjoins that didn't use either equal-value | ||
| inputs or outputs. Previous attempts at non-equal mixes were [easy to | ||
| compromise][coinjoin sudoku], but if an improved method was found, it | ||
| could significantly improve the privacy of coinjoins by making their | ||
| transactions look like [payment batching][]. This seemed especially | ||
| relevant after reports that a popular exchange was investigating users | ||
| participating in the chaumian-style coinjoins created by Wasabi | ||
| Wallet. Although several ideas were discussed, we think the [summary][ontivero summary] | ||
| by Lucas Ontivero captures the essence of the overall conclusion: "In | ||
| summary, unequal inputs/outputs coinjoins [knapsack][] is the best we | ||
| have at the moment ([but] it is not as effective as equal-outputs | ||
| transactions)." | ||
|
|
||
| - **Encoded descriptors:** Chris Belcher [asked][belcher descriptors] | ||
| for feedback from the Bitcoin-Dev mailing list about base64 encoding | ||
| [output script descriptors][topic descriptors] so that they're easier | ||
|
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. perhaps "feedback... on encoding output script descriptors in base64" or similar might break up these five words a little for readability |
||
| to copy and paste (and also so that regular users aren't exposed to | ||
| their code-like syntax). At least one reply was opposed to the idea | ||
| and other replies which did support the idea each proposed a different | ||
| encoding format. The discussion to date did not come to any | ||
| clear conclusion. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Notable code and documentation changes | ||
|
|
||
| *Notable changes this week in [Bitcoin Core][bitcoin core repo], | ||
| [C-Lightning][c-lightning repo], [Eclair][eclair repo], [LND][lnd repo], | ||
| [libsecp256k1][libsecp256k1 repo], [Bitcoin Improvement Proposals | ||
| (BIPs)][bips repo], and [Lightning BOLTs][bolts repo].* | ||
|
|
||
| - [C-Lightning #3351][] extends the `invoice` RPC with a new | ||
| `exposeprivatechannels` parameter that allows the user to request | ||
| the addition of route hints for private channels to a generated [BOLT11][] | ||
|
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. s/request the addition of/add|specify/ might be simpler to read
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I like the current phrasing because (if I understand the change correctly), the route hints requested aren't guaranteed to be added to the invoice---they're only added if the daemon considers the "channels to be usable" (e.g. they have incoming capacity). |
||
| invoice. The user may optionally specify which channels they want to | ||
| advertise in the invoice, including both public and private channels. | ||
|
|
||
| - [LND #3647][] switches from using base64 to hex for the display of | ||
| binary data in the `listinvoices` RPC. This is a breaking API change for users of any | ||
|
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. perhaps "binary data (payment hashes and preimages) in the |
||
| of the updated fields. | ||
jnewbery marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
|
||
| - [LND #3814][] allows the UTXO sweeper to add wallet inputs to a | ||
| sweep transaction in order to ensure its output meets the dust limit. | ||
| This is designed to help support the proposed anchor outputs feature | ||
| (see [Newsletter #70][news70 anchor]) which will need to add inputs to | ||
| a transaction in order to be able to spend low-value UTXOs. | ||
|
|
||
| {% include linkers/issues.md issues="3647,3814,3351" %} | ||
| [Schnorr/Taproot workshops]: /en/schorr-taproot-workshop/ | ||
| [wuille slides]: https://prezi.com/view/AlXd19INd3isgt3SvW8g/ | ||
| [wuille suggestion]: http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/taproot-bip-review/2019/taproot-bip-review.2019-12-17-19.01.log.html#l-8 | ||
| [zmn post]: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2019-December/002375.html | ||
| [ficsor non-equal]: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2019-December/017538.html | ||
| [cashfusion]: https://github.com/cashshuffle/spec/blob/master/CASHFUSION.md | ||
| [knapsack]: https://www.comsys.rwth-aachen.de/fileadmin/papers/2017/2017-maurer-trustcom-coinjoin.pdf | ||
| [coinjoin sudoku]: http://www.coinjoinsudoku.com/ | ||
| [payment batching]: https://github.com/bitcoinops/scaling-book/blob/master/x.payment_batching/payment_batching.md | ||
jnewbery marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
| [belcher descriptors]: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2019-December/017529.html | ||
| [news70 anchor]: /en/newsletters/2019/10/30/#ln-simplified-commitments | ||
| [taproot meeting]: http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/taproot-bip-review/2019/taproot-bip-review.2019-12-17-19.01.html | ||
|
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. perhaps this link instead? http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/taproot-bip-review/2019/taproot-bip-review.2019-12-17-19.01.log.html
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. We link to a line in the log a few sentences later, so I made this a link to the overview. I admit that this overview is particularly useful, but I think it's better than linking to the same file twice. |
||
| [ontivero summary]: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2019-December/017544.html | ||
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.