- principal --> Major
- I would not call cost a risk. The opening fee IMHO is not a risk, it is simply a cost.
- commas
- in reference to time "immediately" better than "directly"
- added another example, to explain when not to create a channel
- no commas when subject is the same on both parts of sentence
- nothing seems to be gained by introducing concept of "traffic" --> removed it
- instead explained what the scarce resources are
- more explanations
- etc.
- again, avoid extreme terms like "really high" that cannot be quantified.
- you do not gain the entire channel capacity, gain means "benefit", if 9 mBTC out of the 10 mBTC channel capacity were yours anyway, you would GET 10 mBTC but only GAIN 1 mBTC.
- additions
- mention of game theory
- etc
- simplified
- reduced sentence length
- comma after thus
- with respect to time "immediately" is better than "directly"
- avoid extremes, replaced "much higher" with "higher", later we specify the figure 5x anyway
- "additional" better than "more"
- misc clarifications
- some additions
- etc
- closing tx, shutdown tx, etc: to avoid any confusion I took the "shutdown tx" out and simply named it the "on-chain tx"
- replaced "party" with "channel partner" for consistency
- removed "as many people think". If the book does a good job, not many people will think that ! In any case, this phrase does not help. Better to just state the facts.
- etc
- Bitcoin: uppercase as it refers to fees on the Bitcoin protocol
- added more detail on importance of longevity of channel
- the last sentence was way too long and too complicated. restructured it.
- etc
- added distinction between "public" and "private" channel, added the 2 terms
- rename 2-2 to 2-out-of-2 for consistency and to make it clearer
- simplified a few sentences
- added a few additional clarifying words
- etc
- comma after however
- when referring to time "immediately" is better and more meaningful than "directly"
- when referring to time duration "lasts" is better than "is"
- consistency: "channel partner" better than "party"
- etc
- replace "capacity" with "funds to reduce tech jargon
- replaced 2-2 with 2-out-of-2 for consistency and to clarify
- everyone --> singular .. its funds .. not their funds
- "wallet" wrong, "address" better
- avoid "flaw", it might get misinterpreted, rephrased to clearly state that we present the design step-by-step
- "you probably have realized" and "hope you recognize that" puts the reader in a bind. If the reader does not see the problem we will feel "dumb" because the text implies "probably you realized". I suggest to rewrite it so, that the reader does not feel "dumb" just because he does not see the shortcut. --> see changes
- however requires comma
- avoid extremes like "rather high", use facts and measurable units, here simply "high"
- "to lose funds" incorrect, "loose" is correct
- took one long sentence and split it up into several short one making understanding a lot simpler
- etc
- peer-to-peer better than "peer 2 peer" , in acronyms p2p is ok
- English language guidelines recommend numbers up to 12 to be spelled out. 4 --> four
- minor additions/clarifications
The travis linter is too strict and we keep failing builds. This is a bit like taking the batteries out of the smoke alarm, or using aluminum foil to replace a fuse, or both. Everything is fine!
- replace "committing attack" with "performing attack" to avoid that the reader incorrectly concludes that the term "commitment tx" has anything to do with "committing an attack"
- signed by, not signed from
- consistently sticking to "2-out-of-2"
- rephrasing some sentences to make them more palatable. "obviously a lie" is a bit aggressive.
- avoid using exaggerating terms like "very expensive", just state the facts without too many emotions
- as before "2-out-of-2" is more appropriate than "2-2"
- "thus" is not what you wanted to express, "however" is what you wanted to say
- added missing comma
- etc
- "the both of you": incorrect English, better "both of you"
- "cheat on you": spoken English, better "cheat you"
- "had to be", that sounds like you are guessing, better "was"
- if you give full names of some, give full names of all
- added year to make it more precise
- etc.
- comma must follow "additionally" and "however" as they are introductory words or phrases
- same for "last but not least", comma missing
- "nothing else than", not perfect English; better "nothing but"
- "get most use", not perfect English; better "get more benefits"
- consistent use of "partner"
- added "Bitcoin" to "Bitcoin smart contract" because there are many people out there that have heard the term "smart contract" exclusively in the context of Ethereum. It might be worth while to underline that Bitcoin also has its form of smart contracts. This should eliminate any possible doubts.
- imply that earlier states are no longer valid, added "invalidated"
- channel member is singular, so "if they try" is wrong. better "if it tries"
- removed incorrect comma in front of "as well as"
- added "both" to make it stronger that LN has 2 main functionalities
- "... on the network." leaves it undefined. The reader might ask to which netowrk it refers to? To the before mentioned netowrk of payment-channels? Added "Bitcoin" to clarify.
* clarifiactions and additions
some modifications to improve, clarify
some additions to add more details where appropriate
... lightweight Bitcoin client (commonly referred to as Simplified Payment Verification (SPV)) to partially validate the correctness of their blockchain. --> partially? Probably you mean "indirectly" as you delegate to a third party. Also SPVs clients don't have a blockchain, so why "their blockchain"? --> to reduce this confusion --> lightweight Bitcoin client (commonly referred to as Simplified Payment Verification (SPV)) to interact with the blockchain
... lightning wallets ... --> ... Lightning wallets ...
centralized and added more details to definition of non-custodial wallet
* Update 02_getting_started.asciidoc
added the sentince back in
Co-authored-by: Rene Pickhardt <rene@rene-pickhardt.de>
- minor clarifications
- incorrect use of plural
- repetitive use of "this way" --> this fashion
- clarifying "each time" --> each payment
- added detail that LN txs are not stored permanently
- repetitive use of "explanation" --> clarification
- seeing --> revisiting
- etc.
