Good morning Robin,
> Good morning everybody!
>
> Thanks again for your detailed feedback.
>
> Maybe you're right and my solution is just crap :) So back to the drafting
> table!
>
> It seems to be a good idea to separate problem definition and solution. Here
> I tried to nail down LN's usabili
Good morning everybody!
Thanks again for your detailed feedback.
Maybe you're right and my solution is just crap :) So back to the drafting
table!
It seems to be a good idea to separate problem definition and solution. Here I
tried to nail down LN's usability issue:
https://github.com/coins/co
In general, your thoughts on the theory of how consensus changes should
work I strongly agree with. However, my one significant disagreement is
how practical it is for things to *actually* work that way. While I wish
ecosystem players (both businesses and users) spent their time
interacting with th
Good thing no one is proposing a naive BIP 9 approach :). I'll note that
BIP 9 has been fairly robust (spy-mining issues notwithstanding, which
we believe are at least largely solved in the wild) in terms of safety,
though I noted extensively in the first mail that it failed in terms of
misundersta
As well I would like to point out that in order to receive funds, *something*
has to be online to get the message that receives the data.
In the blockchain layer this is diffused among all fullnodes.
At the Lightning layer, your direct peer could hold off on failing an incoming
payment while you
Hi Robin.
While your motivation seems reasonable, your solution is not. It is not enough
that a problem exists. Although the solution must be technically sound for the
proposal to be interesting. So I agree it makes sense to consider Bitcoin
sidechains, not sure if with PoS consensus or other,
