Jason Schrader

Looks like something happened between `1.0.6` and `1.1.0` that causes contracts with this type of definition to fail `clarinet check`. [See this comment for more information](https://github.com/citycoins/protocol/pull/19#issuecomment-1325431794), and I confirmed it...

Thanks for the update! This is the first use case we've come up with, and more wanted to confirm what the expected behavior should be so we can plan the...

@hugocaillard I ran some tests today using `clarinet-cli 1.1.0` from the `develop` branch based on #680, and we're seeing an error now using the shorthand notation for a contract name,...

Testing out `clarinet-cli 1.2.0` there and see a few errors regarding passing a smaller list than what's defined in the contractt: ``` error: expecting expression of type '(list 200 (tuple...

+1 Dio and Vidia have been amazing to work with and would be a great team to tackle these projects!

@jcnelson yes! Catching up the official minutes today but the Governance CAB approves :+1: Update: meeting minutes are in #107 and will be merged in once the CAB reviews one...

After the call today I was thinking about how this would fit into the SIP process, and I see two distinct things that we're asking for here: 1. A standard...

Also linking this relevant [forum discussion on the topic](https://forum.stacks.org/t/rfc-standardizing-on-bitcoin-derivation-paths/13394)!

+1, was looking for a testnet version of SIP-009/SIP-010 and saw that many projects deploy their own. I could see it done two ways: - a separate document outlining deployed...

Thank you for this! Without knowing much about soft and hard forks on the technical side, this SIP gave me a great understanding of what capabilities exist to mitigate a...