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

Lightning Specification Meeting 2020/10/26 #805

Closed
8 of 17 tasks
t-bast opened this issue Oct 19, 2020 · 6 comments
Closed
8 of 17 tasks

Lightning Specification Meeting 2020/10/26 #805

t-bast opened this issue Oct 19, 2020 · 6 comments

Comments

@t-bast
Copy link
Collaborator

t-bast commented Oct 19, 2020

The meeting will take place on Monday 2020/10/26 at 7pm UTC on IRC #lightning-dev. It is open to the public.

Pull Request Review

Issues

Long Term Updates

Backlog

The following are topics that we should discuss at some point, so if we have time to discuss them great, otherwise they slip to the next meeting.


Post-Meeting notes:

Action items

The full logs can be found here

@t-bast t-bast pinned this issue Oct 19, 2020
@ariard
Copy link
Contributor

ariard commented Oct 20, 2020

May we add #807, #808 and #809 ?

Also can we get back #772 now context which leads to its opening is public ?

@t-bast
Copy link
Collaborator Author

t-bast commented Oct 21, 2020

Added to the PR review list

@t-bast
Copy link
Collaborator Author

t-bast commented Oct 22, 2020

I just added #804 to the list as well: it may be worth re-visiting the option of adding an explicit complete boolean field to channel range queries instead of implicitly figuring out that a sync is complete.

@cdecker
Copy link
Collaborator

cdecker commented Oct 26, 2020

Adding the recent discussion on a simplified HTLC negotiation to address nodes drifting out of sync, and more consistent state might be a good idea. We've had quite some discussions around this lately, and I'd love to hear what others think about it.

@cdecker
Copy link
Collaborator

cdecker commented Oct 26, 2020

Regarding the CVEs: would it make sense to include a writeup of these in this repo, and link them into the respective places as rationaly?

@t-bast
Copy link
Collaborator Author

t-bast commented Oct 26, 2020

It's an interesting proposal, you would add a "cve" folder and have a write-up about each CVE we've found? I think it's nice, it would be easy to find

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants