📅 Original date posted:2019-02-06
📝 Original message:The attack was in your implication that I would assume ill intent of those
contributed to the proposal. That is not my position. I explained why, I
think, rolling out a commitment could face opposition. This foreseable
opposition, that must not come from you makes me prefer a provable
uncommitted filter for now.
I am myself concerned of the implications if many nodes would blindly
follow POW.
I did restart the discussion which I read and participated in at its first
instance because implementing the current proposal taught me how
problematic as is until not committed and because I have not seen a sign to
assume commitment was imminent.
This is not just missing code. AFAIK we do not even have a consensus on how
any future soft fork would be activated.
While trying to build a useful software I have to make assumtions on the
timeline of dependencies and in my personal evaluation commitment is not
yet to build on.
I and others learned in this new discussion new arguments such as that of
atomic swaps by Laolu. If nothing else, this was worth of learning.
It appears me that it is rather you assuming ill intent on my side, which
hurts given that I do contribute to the ecosystem since many years and have
not ever been caught of hurting the project.
Tamas Blummer
On Wed, 6 Feb 2019, 20:16 Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 7:48 PM Tamas Blummer <tamas.blummer at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I do not think this ad hominem attack of you on me was justified.
>
> I apologize if I have offended you, but I am at a loss to find in my
> words you found to be an attack. Can you help me out?
>
> On reread the only thing I'm saying is that you hadn't even read the
> prior discussion. Am I mistaken? If so, why did you simply propose
> reverting prior improvements without addressing the arguments given
> the first time around or even acknowledging that you were rehashing an
> old discussion?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20190206/2f3af794/attachment-0001.html>;
Tamas Blummer [ARCHIVE] /
npub1cc…ex8m8
2023-06-07 18:16:25
in reply to nevent1q…25n8
Author Public Key
npub1ccegg9n9lnx6huppxg43m95488yur7pfemkn3pz0agjws5ffvtts0ex8m8Published at
2023-06-07 18:16:25Event JSON
{
"id": "a9b714b567a9d961df88d13eb845f43a9ce39c9ec045d572f9e704a47fd9457d",
"pubkey": "c632841665fccdabf021322b1d969539c9c1f829ceed38844fea24e8512962d7",
"created_at": 1686161785,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"97c0ce78b62d3274e700b5b31976e55b4f8b4af0d55ebfe0f570f183e8cfddf3",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"f4b35bf1310e67c47b6c4c05b4d956198cdd39e86e951b19069be0b50e9cac44",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"c632841665fccdabf021322b1d969539c9c1f829ceed38844fea24e8512962d7"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2019-02-06\n📝 Original message:The attack was in your implication that I would assume ill intent of those\ncontributed to the proposal. That is not my position. I explained why, I\nthink, rolling out a commitment could face opposition. This foreseable\nopposition, that must not come from you makes me prefer a provable\nuncommitted filter for now.\n\nI am myself concerned of the implications if many nodes would blindly\nfollow POW.\n\nI did restart the discussion which I read and participated in at its first\ninstance because implementing the current proposal taught me how\nproblematic as is until not committed and because I have not seen a sign to\nassume commitment was imminent.\n\nThis is not just missing code. AFAIK we do not even have a consensus on how\nany future soft fork would be activated.\n\nWhile trying to build a useful software I have to make assumtions on the\ntimeline of dependencies and in my personal evaluation commitment is not\nyet to build on.\n\nI and others learned in this new discussion new arguments such as that of\natomic swaps by Laolu. If nothing else, this was worth of learning.\n\nIt appears me that it is rather you assuming ill intent on my side, which\nhurts given that I do contribute to the ecosystem since many years and have\nnot ever been caught of hurting the project.\n\nTamas Blummer\n\n\nOn Wed, 6 Feb 2019, 20:16 Gregory Maxwell \u003cgmaxwell at gmail.com wrote:\n\n\u003e On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 7:48 PM Tamas Blummer \u003ctamas.blummer at gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e I do not think this ad hominem attack of you on me was justified.\n\u003e\n\u003e I apologize if I have offended you, but I am at a loss to find in my\n\u003e words you found to be an attack. Can you help me out?\n\u003e\n\u003e On reread the only thing I'm saying is that you hadn't even read the\n\u003e prior discussion. Am I mistaken? If so, why did you simply propose\n\u003e reverting prior improvements without addressing the arguments given\n\u003e the first time around or even acknowledging that you were rehashing an\n\u003e old discussion?\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20190206/2f3af794/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "05ede2d9cbbdd8d88994fabcb526ef3f1d6c54532ba6de465211d075cd391cdecf155ead82de0ce46508744f5c3648629e01fb2bf61273da55c649338b7bb145"
}