Someone better versed in the noise protocol may consider including 'authentication' and 'identity privacy', so that the glossary information on the noise protocol is parallel to [the one in ch.3](https://github.com/lnbook/lnbook/blob/develop/03_how_ln_works.asciidoc):
>The Noise Protocol Framework allows the construction of cryptographic communication protocols that offer authentication, encryption, forward secrecy and identity privacy.
I removed "You have". Now it's all in one sentence -- less ambiguous and more concise I believe. The more verbose alternative would be:
>You have *time* until ...
In this commit, we present an initial version of the chapter on the
channel graph itself, how to bootstrap a new peer to the network, how to
sync it, how to validate it, and how to maintain it once bootstrapped.
The current version of this chapter covers the following BOLTs: 07, 10.
BOLTs 09, 08, and 01 are alluded to along the way.
This is marked as a draft commit, as I still need to fill out the final
portion that covers how the current gossip network works, and the
protocol used to sync the channel graph based on block heights of
channels.
Due to the current length, we may want to consider eventually breaking
this chapter up, however I'm focusing on content first.
It would be fine to maintain consistency in spelling out the numbers (provided that they are not code/math/ BTC amounts) that are < 10. I left out "8 GB" unchanged, though. "eight Gigabyte" would perhaps be more consistent, but at the same time would seem very
unusual, whereas "eight GB" just make no sense to me.
[A post about style](https://www.grammarly.com/blog/when-to-spell-out-numbers/) for the reference.
>In scientific and technical writing, the prevailing style is to write out numbers under ten. While there are exceptions to these rules, your predominant concern should be expressing numbers consistently.
You are right [Umar](@bolatovumar) , I have not found a single source on the web with _two-of-two_, _2-of-2_ seems to be the standard. I edited my pull request, so now the changes do not include 2-of-2 modification. I find the issue of '2-of-2' vs 'two-of-two' interesting and may soon create a question on [English Stack Exchange](https://english.stackexchange.com/) in order to get their opinion.
It would be well to maintain consistency in spelling out the numbers (provided that they are not code/math/ BTC amounts) that are < 10. I left out "chapter 6" and the like unchanged.
[A post about style][1] for the reference.
>In scientific and technical writing, the prevailing style is to write out numbers under ten. While there are exceptions to these rules, your predominant concern should be expressing numbers consistently.
[1]: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/when-to-spell-out-numbers/
**Changes:**
* Added some missing full stops.
* 'meaning a pre-defined process based on cryptography, used by the channel partners to re-distribute' to 'meaning a pre-defined process based on cryptography is used by the channel partners to re-distribute'
* 'Payment channels basics' to 'Payment channel basics'
* 'Channels partners can agree to announce' to 'Channel partners can agree to announce'
* 'don’t need to trust your channel to retrieve the balance of your channel' to 'don’t need to trust your channel partner to retrieve the balance of your channel'
* 'present a Lightning invoice to Alice as a QR code, or send it via email, or any other message channel' or 'present a Lightning invoice to Alice as a QR code, send it via email, or any other message channel'
* 'who just sent her an uninvitedly email' to 'who just uninvitedly sent her an email'
* 'addresses as part of payment channel on the Lightning Network' to 'addresses as part of payment channels on the Lightning Network'
* 'We looked at how payments are routed. Finally, we compared Lightning and Bitcoin and analyzed their differences and commonalities' to 'We looked at how payments are routed and finally, we compared Lightning with Bitcoin and analyzed their differences and commonalities'
