Newsletters: add 346 (2025-03-21) #2228
Conversation
| of LND's recently-rewritten _sweeper_ system, which is responsible | ||
| determining what feerates to use for onchain transactions (including |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| of LND's recently-rewritten _sweeper_ system, which is responsible | |
| determining what feerates to use for onchain transactions (including | |
| of LND's recently-rewritten _sweeper_ system, which | |
| determines feerates to use for onchain transactions (including |
(or, "is responsible for determining")
| an external estimator) and ends with the total budget being allocated | ||
| to fees when the deadline is one block away." | ||
|
|
||
| He additionally describes how the new logic helps protected against |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| He additionally describes how the new logic helps protected against | |
| He additionally describes how the new logic helps protect against |
| pinning]. | ||
|
|
||
| He concludes with a link-filled summary of several "LND-specific bug | ||
| and vulnerability fixes" made though the improved logic. Abubakar |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| and vulnerability fixes" made though the improved logic. Abubakar | |
| and vulnerability fixes" made through the improved logic. Abubakar |
| LN implementations (in addition to other software) can make more | ||
| effective use of Bitcoin Core's fee estimation. Several other |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| LN implementations (in addition to other software) can make more | |
| effective use of Bitcoin Core's fee estimation. Several other | |
| LN implementations (in addition to other software) can more | |
| effectively use Bitcoin Core's fee estimation. Several other |
|
Pushed client/services section (ignore that I called it the stack exchange segment!) |
| [Lightning BLIPs][blips repo], [Bitcoin Inquisition][bitcoin inquisition | ||
| repo], and [BINANAs][binana repo]._ | ||
|
|
||
| - [Bitcoin Core #31649][] removes all checkpoint logic, replacing it with the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"replacing it with" in this context sounds like this PR is replacing it, but really presync was a few years ago. Id suggest some slight rewording here @Gustavojfe
|
Made edits for all feedback to my sections (thanks @LarryRuane @bitschmidty !), added lede, and added topic entries. I deleted the releases/RCs section but then thought to check whether Bitcoin Core 29 RCs were available, which they are, so I'll add it back in an update later today. Thanks everyone! I'll check back for additional review comments around 01:00 UTC. |
|
|
||
| Morehouse then describes how these two strategies are combined in | ||
| LND's new sweeper system: "[HTLC][topic htlc] claims with matching | ||
| deadlines [are aggregated] into a single [batched transaction][topic |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[are aggregated]
Is this a dead link?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess these are externally inserted words into the quote (I bet there is a term for it).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah. Adding those words there allowed us to save a bunch of words at the beginning of the quote. Sorry for the ambiguity.
| - [BTCPay Server #6581][] adds [RBF][topic rbf] support, enabling fee bumping | ||
| for transactions that have no descendants, where all inputs are from the | ||
| store’s wallet, and which include one of the store’s change addresses. Users | ||
| can now choose between [CPFP][topic cpfp] and RBF when choosing to fee bump a |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| can now choose between [CPFP][topic cpfp] and RBF when choosing to fee bump a | |
| can now choose between [CPFP][topic cpfp] and RBF when fee-bumping a |
| - [Bitcoin Core #31649][] removes all checkpoint logic, which is no longer | ||
| necessary following the headers presync step implemented years ago (see | ||
| Newsletter [#216][news216 presync]) that enables a node during Initial Block | ||
| Download (IBD) to determine if a chain of headers is valid by comparing its |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| Download (IBD) to determine if a chain of headers is valid by comparing its | |
| Download (IBD) to determine if a chain of headers may be valid by comparing its |
Maybe, because otherwise it sounds like that's the only validity check that's needed.
bitschmidty
force-pushed
the
2025-03-21-newsletter
branch
from
c0ba735 to
3913c5d
Compare
I might also add something about the testnet3 discussion on the ML, but I see AntoineP just started a related thread, so I'm inclined to let that stew for a few days and summarize it next week.