Newsletters: add #39 (2019-03-26) #126

harding · 2019-03-25T17:26:02Z

No description provided.

harding · 2019-03-25T17:28:09Z

_includes/references.md

@@ -44,7 +44,6 @@ for details --> {% endcomment %}
 {% comment %}<!-- Later link definitions supersede earlier definitions.
 When more recent information about a BIP is available not in the regular
 place, put links here. -->{% endcomment %}
-[BIP151]: https://gist.github.com/jonasschnelli/c530ea8421b8d0e80c51486325587c52


Note: this gist previously pointed to the updated version of BIP151. However, now its latest HEAD points to the v2 encrypted protocol, so I've dropped it so that we link to the old version of BIP151 instead. An alternative would be for me to find the previous updated-151 version in the gist repository history (let me know if you want that; I have no preference here).

I'm indifferent

_posts/en/newsletters/2019-03-26-newsletter.md

moneyball · 2019-03-25T19:28:57Z

_posts/en/newsletters/2019-03-26-newsletter.md

+
+## News
+
+- **Version 2 P2P transport proposal:** Jonas Schnelli sent a proposed


We should link to this new proposal. https://gist.github.com/jonasschnelli/c530ea8421b8d0e80c51486325587c52

D'oh, can't believe I forgot to put a link. I'm going to link to the mailing list thread because I want to encourage people to comment there for now. If we link to it in the future, we may use the gist (but hopefully he'll have a new BIP number by then).

moneyball · 2019-03-25T19:30:16Z

_includes/references.md

@@ -44,7 +44,6 @@ for details --> {% endcomment %}
 {% comment %}<!-- Later link definitions supersede earlier definitions.
 When more recent information about a BIP is available not in the regular
 place, put links here. -->{% endcomment %}
-[BIP151]: https://gist.github.com/jonasschnelli/c530ea8421b8d0e80c51486325587c52


I'm indifferent

moneyball · 2019-03-25T19:44:52Z

_posts/en/newsletters/2019-03-26-newsletter.md

+    trusted payment in advance of the trustless exchange as an act of
+    good faith and an assurance that the operation won't end up costing
+    Bob money.
+


To be clear, this is referring to "Fee: Client sends a small fee HTLC that is unrestricted"? And, just to make sure I understand, this is an off-chain/LN payment from Alice to Bob?

Yes. I'm editing to add "via LN" so that it's clearer. Thanks for catching that confusing omission!

moneyball · 2019-03-25T20:22:16Z

_posts/en/newsletters/2019-03-26-newsletter.md

+To further gauge segwit popularity, you might also want to know which
+notable Bitcoin wallets and services support it.  For that, we recommend
+the community-maintained [bech32 adoption][] page on the Bitcoin Wiki or
+the [when segwit][] page maintained by BRD Wallet.


nit: lowercase wallet?

moneyball · 2019-03-25T21:14:33Z

tACK

jnewbery · 2019-03-25T21:32:09Z

_posts/en/newsletters/2019-03-26-newsletter.md

+
+![Screenshot of Optech Dashboard segwit usage stats](/img/posts/2019-03-segwit-usage.png)
+
+However, wallets supporting segwit can also receive payment to


I think this paragraph would be a little confusing for people not familiar with P2SH-wrapped segwit. Do you think the following would be clearer:

However, wallets supporting segwit can also receive payment to backwards-compatible _P2SH-wrapped segwit_ addresses. We can't directly track how many P2SH address are P2SH-wrapped segwit, but the statistics sites linked earlier do tell us how often users spend bitcoins they received to a P2SH-wrapped segwit address. Currently, that averages at about 37% of transactions. If adoption remained steady at that level, it would represent a minimum average of 1,400 outputs per block. Likely, it's even higher now.

I don't understand what you mean by '37% of transactions. Are you saying that 37% of spends are from P2SH-wrapped segwit UTXOs? Or that 37% of P2SH outputs that are spent are P2SH-wrapped segwit?

EDIT: harding has clarified this for me. 37% of inputs used in transactions are P2SH-wrapped segwit.

I told @jnewbery wrong. It's that 37% of transactions contain at least one input that spends from a nested-segwit output.

I'll be editing the paragraph to try to improve clarity.

moneyball · 2019-03-25T23:05:14Z

tACK a09d111

practicalswift · 2019-03-26T08:31:07Z

_posts/en/newsletters/2019-03-26-newsletter.md

+  (RC) for the next major version of Bitcoin Core has been [released][0.18.0].
+  Testing is still needed by organizations and experienced users who
+  plan to run the new version of Bitcoin Core in production.  Use [this
+  issue][Bitcoin Core #15555] for reporting feedback.


Please see this comment bitcoin/bitcoin#15555 (comment):

I'd advise against reporting issues here. They should go in their own report. Otherwise it is hard to follow-up on reports when everything is in the same thread.

Thanks @practicalswift! I think it still makes sense to point testers to a single location to 'leave feedback'. If they need to open an new issue for an unreported problem, that issue instructs them to do so.

jnewbery

I've pushed a fixup commit with a few small changes. @harding - are you able to take a look before we publish?

jnewbery · 2019-03-26T13:44:54Z

_posts/en/newsletters/2019-03-26-newsletter.md

+
+![Screenshot of Optech Dashboard segwit usage stats](/img/posts/2019-03-segwit-usage.png)
+
+However, many wallets want to use segwit but still need to deal with


I'll suggest a few additional changes to this paragraph in a commit.

jnewbery · 2019-03-26T13:45:27Z

_posts/en/newsletters/2019-03-26-newsletter.md

+(BIPs)][bips repo].*
+
+- [Bitcoin Core #10973][] makes Bitcoin Core's built-in wallet access
+  information about the block chain through a class rather than using


I think this is clearer wit s/a class/a well-defined interface.

jnewbery · 2019-03-26T13:51:48Z

_posts/en/newsletters/2019-03-26-newsletter.md

+  with this update, but the merge is notable because it's the last of a
+  set of foundational refactorings that should make it easy for
+  future changes to run the node and the wallet/GUI in separate
+  processes (see [Bitcoin Core #10102][] for one approach to this).


Also improves code modularity and makes component testing easier.

jnewbery · 2019-03-26T13:52:35Z

_posts/en/newsletters/2019-03-26-newsletter.md

+
+- [Bitcoin Core #15617][] omits sending `addr` messages containing the
+  IP addresses of peers the node currently has on its ban-list.  This
+  helps prevent innocent nodes from learning about peers your node found


I find the word 'innocent' a bit unsuitable in a p2p trustless network. Reworded in my fixup commit.

jnewbery · 2019-03-26T13:54:22Z

_posts/en/newsletters/2019-03-26-newsletter.md

+  configuration option (default: 0.1 BTC).  The new parameter takes a
+  feerate and will reject the transaction if its feerate is above the
+  provided value (regardless of the setting for `maxtxfee`).  If no
+  value is provided, it'll only send the transaction if its feerate is


if its fee is below the maxtxfee total.

harding · 2019-03-26T14:20:47Z

Untested ACK 85d0e23 Thanks!

harding commented Mar 25, 2019

View reviewed changes

moneyball reviewed Mar 25, 2019

View reviewed changes

jnewbery reviewed Mar 25, 2019

View reviewed changes

practicalswift reviewed Mar 26, 2019

View reviewed changes

jnewbery reviewed Mar 26, 2019

View reviewed changes

Newsletters: add bitcoinops#39 (2019-03-26)

8e02da4

jnewbery force-pushed the 2019-03-26-newsletter branch from 85d0e23 to 8e02da4 Compare March 26, 2019 14:22

jnewbery merged commit e0283b1 into bitcoinops:master Mar 26, 2019

bitschmidty pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 5, 2024

Newsletter-318: translate into Chinese (#126)

e26d9cc


		## News

		- Version 2 P2P transport proposal: Jonas Schnelli sent a proposed


		![Screenshot of Optech Dashboard segwit usage stats](/img/posts/2019-03-segwit-usage.png)

		However, wallets supporting segwit can also receive payment to


		![Screenshot of Optech Dashboard segwit usage stats](/img/posts/2019-03-segwit-usage.png)

		However, many wallets want to use segwit but still need to deal with

Newsletters: add #39 (2019-03-26) #126

Newsletters: add #39 (2019-03-26) #126

Uh oh!

Conversation

harding commented Mar 25, 2019

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

moneyball commented Mar 25, 2019

Uh oh!

jnewbery Mar 25, 2019 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

moneyball commented Mar 25, 2019

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jnewbery left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

harding commented Mar 26, 2019

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

jnewbery Mar 25, 2019 •

edited

Loading