text: Yes, many systems doesn't really make sense. We can add editors and revise the BIP process as needed (BOLTs might prefer to use markdown?). Even aside from Lightning BIPs, there are several improvements that can be made, so it makes sense to address everything at once. The BIP 2xx range has been set aside for Lightning years ago, and we can do similar things to help keep things organized within BIPs. Kalle suggested maybe it'd be better to do BIP "L###" instead, and perhaps that would work better if there's likely to be several sub-namespaces. Luke On Friday 02 July 2021 12:02:28 Dan Gershony wrote: > Hi, >ichael Folkson <michaelfolk...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Adding a third BIP editor more involved with Lightning sounds like a > > > > good idea. > > > > > Or alternatively if BOLTs were subsumed into BIPs I think Bastien > > > would be a great additional BIP editor to cover Lightning related BIPs > > > > > > :) I think BOLTs being subsumed into BIPs would be nice but I'm > > > > > > pessimistic it will happen. Like legislation and regulation in the > > > legacy financial system alphabet soups only expand they never get > > > simplified. Let's at least resist alphabet soup expansion here. > > > > arent lightning improvements in the end bitcoin improvements too? > > i am thinking of bips like the rfcs of the internet > > > > -- > > nathanael > > _______________________________________________ > > Lightning-dev mailing list > > Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > _______________________________________________ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org