• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Traders who have experience in equity market know it well that news items on the companies and their quarterly results tend to have great impact on the stock price, similar things happen in Bitcoin trading. So, let’s say it’s your turn right now, I want to make a payment, then I say, "Hey, I know it’s your turn, but can I do an update right now? So, you can prompt, basically a yield, you say, "Hey, I have an update, it’s not my turn". I have one", and then you send yield, and then I can go? How do you know; is there a way for the other party to say, "Hey, I want to take my turn, can you finish up? So basically, it’s not quite latency optimal, but if you’re not doing anything or if you have a pending update you want to give, you can prompt a yield from them to take your turn. T-bast, can you talk about the issues with either peer being allowed to propose a commitment transaction and why turn-taking may be a good idea? Currently in Lightning, either channel peer can propose a new commitment transaction at any time, and this can be simplified by introducing this notion of turn-taking.

You can opt-in for HTML version too. " Or, is it just generally that everybody should only take as little time as possible, as in, "I propose this and we wrap it up immediately, we finish up our commitment transaction", and then it’s nobody’s turn for a while until somebody starts taking a turn again; or, how is it ensured that everybody can take turns when they need to? The requirements are instead that a new block’s timestamp must be greater than the median timestamp of the past 11 blocks but no later than two hours after the present time according to the clock on the computer running the node. So, youtu.be I think that now we have fixed most of these issues, we haven’t seen in the past one or two years any issues related to the implementation of that protocol. It makes it hard to debug, it’s something where we had a lot of compatibility bugs over the years, and it created a lot of force close a few years ago because there were compatibility issues when many updates were in flight, and just because that protocol was complex to get right.

We would have the opportunity to just reject some of the updates without force closing, which is really a nice benefit. And if you add one more than that, my only option is to force close basically. Mark Erhardt: So I’m wondering, one of the issues that seems to jump out when I hear you talking about this is, what if one side keeps making updates but not concluding it? Mark Erhardt: Oh, okay. Mark Erhardt: So, while nobody is taking a turn, both have yielded and then anybody can start again, or… Mark Erhardt: I guess you could sell that or share that, but it’s not clear to me why any other peer or network participant should trust you to have accurate information. It’s sort of like how Bitcoin nodes all do their individual check of the blockchain and enforce all of the rules locally, because they have absolutely no reason to trust another peer that that peer did the work and is truthfully reporting the data to them, instead of just doing it themselves locally. Bastien Teinturier: I think mostly that it’s starting to work fine and we’re starting to have good velocity on the spec process on some of the important features.

So, that’s why we haven’t moved that much to change it, because we finally have something that seems to work across implementations. But whenever we want to add new features on top of it, the complexity that we have today is going to make it harder. It’s always been quite unclear how much priority we should assign to that, because now that we have a protocol that everyone’s implemented and works, when is it going to be worth changing? That’s something that we will eventually do because simplifying the protocol is always a good idea, but it’s hard to tell when is going to be the right time. The circulating supply of BNB at the time of writing is 157,896,711 BNB. In the same way, if you’d like to exchange your BNB to BTC, you’d go to the BNB/BTC spot market. The complaint charges that for much of the relevant period, Binance did not require its customers to provide any identity-verifying information before trading on the platform, despite the legal duty that entities like Binance functioning as futures commission merchants (FCMs) collect such information, and failed to implement basic compliance procedures designed to prevent and detect terrorist financing and money laundering.