Reject 199 (expired) #1009

1. 
   ysangkok commented at 4:52 pm on October 11, 2020: contributor

   This BIP is expired according to BIP-0002 expiration rules.

   It is linking an ZKCP implementation (pay-to-sudoku). But ZKCP is broken.

   It is not mentioned that PTLC’s are superior for many applications.

   The HTLC’s are discussed and explained in the lightning-rfc documents, and they are subtly different.

   It is not explained how an optimal construction can be achieved using miniscript.

   Tagging @ebfull

2. Reject 199 (expired) e5b32a178a
3. 
   gmaxwell commented at 7:23 am on October 13, 2020: contributor

   The claim the ZKCP is broken is outright false. That paper is about issues with particular implementation using snarks.

   I don’t see any issue moving this proposal to rejected, as you note there are other more efficient constructions and AFAIK this particular one isn’t used as a freestanding thing. ACK.

4. 
   michaelfolkson commented at 9:13 am on November 16, 2020: contributor

   ACK

   (Waiting on #1016 to clarify the rejection criteria but I’m happy with @gmaxwell rationale here. Plus author has been cc’d and has not opposed)

5. 
   ysangkok commented at 6:21 pm on October 11, 2021: contributor

   @kallewoof What is needed for this to move forward?
6. 
   michaelfolkson commented at 9:58 pm on October 11, 2021: contributor

   @ysangkok: I’m working on a revised BIP process (BIP 3) that will propose an update to the 3 year rejection rule. But it isn’t completed, will need review and will take time to become active if it is accepted. In the meantime BIP 2 is clearly active so in this particular case with the BIP author not opposing this change I have ACKed. It is obviously up to the BIP editors whether they merge this or not though.
7. 
   luke-jr commented at 11:02 pm on November 4, 2021: member

   The HTLC’s are discussed and explained in the lightning-rfc documents, and they are subtly different.

   Would it then be more correct to update this BIP with the subtle differences (and then change it to Final)?

8. 
   murchandamus commented at 8:24 pm on April 30, 2024: contributor

   After reading the discussion on #1012, it may be better to hold off on merging this PR, as there is currently an on-going discussion about revising the BIP process per a successor to BIP2.
9. murchandamus added the label Process on May 10, 2024

Contributors
ysangkok gmaxwell michaelfolkson luke-jr murchandamus

Labels
Process