📅 Original date posted:2022-09-16
📝 Original message:Apologies for any typos, somewhat jet-lagged atm.
On 9/16/22 3:15 AM, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Subhead: "Nobody expects a Bitcoin Inquistion? C'mon man, *everyone*
> expects a Bitcoin Inquisition."
>
> As we've seen from the attempt at a CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY activation earlier
> in the year [0], the question of "how to successfully get soft fork
> ideas from concept to deployment" doesn't really have a good answer today.
I strongly disagree with this. Going back many, many years we've had many discussions about fork
process, and the parts people (historically) agreed with tend to be:
(1) come up with an idea
(2) socialize the idea in the technical community, see if anyone comes up with any major issues or
can suggest better ideas which solve the same use-cases in cleaner ways
(3) propose the concrete idea with a more well-defined strawman, socialize that, get some kind of
rough consensus in the loosely-defined, subjective, "technical community" (ie just ask people and
adapt to feedback until you have found some kind of average of the opinions of people you, the
fork-champion, think are reasonably well-informed!).
(4) okay, admittedly beyond this is a bit less defined, but we can deal with it when we get there.
Turns out, the issue today is a lack of champions following steps 1-3, we can debate what the
correct answer is to step (4) once we actually have people who want to be champions who are willing
to (humbly) push an idea forward towards rough agreement of the world of technical bitcoiners
(without which I highly doubt you'd ever see broader-community consensus).
Matt
Matt Corallo [ARCHIVE] /
npub1e4…jxmcu
2023-06-07 23:13:30
in reply to nevent1q…ru8a
Author Public Key
npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcuPublished at
2023-06-07 23:13:30Event JSON
{
"id": "9ce41feb3d8d59e13a7b3ede068b316e37d0b46320ff339be938794ac0ba64b8",
"pubkey": "cd753aa8fbc112e14ffe9fe09d3630f0eff76ca68e376e004b8e77b687adddba",
"created_at": 1686179610,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"2ac589e49ebcf69e5e0c0f74981f090043414ccce35cc1264b0db21e4f35bbfa",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"31be6016b0e64e078c83b85716597cbcc9c17323e0e9e9b3a00e46fbc04ed4a8",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f0feda6ad58ea9f486e469f87b3b9996494363a26982b864667c5d8acb0542ab"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-09-16\n📝 Original message:Apologies for any typos, somewhat jet-lagged atm.\n\nOn 9/16/22 3:15 AM, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e Subhead: \"Nobody expects a Bitcoin Inquistion? C'mon man, *everyone*\n\u003e expects a Bitcoin Inquisition.\"\n\u003e \n\u003e As we've seen from the attempt at a CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY activation earlier\n\u003e in the year [0], the question of \"how to successfully get soft fork\n\u003e ideas from concept to deployment\" doesn't really have a good answer today.\n\nI strongly disagree with this. Going back many, many years we've had many discussions about fork \nprocess, and the parts people (historically) agreed with tend to be:\n\n(1) come up with an idea\n(2) socialize the idea in the technical community, see if anyone comes up with any major issues or \ncan suggest better ideas which solve the same use-cases in cleaner ways\n(3) propose the concrete idea with a more well-defined strawman, socialize that, get some kind of \nrough consensus in the loosely-defined, subjective, \"technical community\" (ie just ask people and \nadapt to feedback until you have found some kind of average of the opinions of people you, the \nfork-champion, think are reasonably well-informed!).\n(4) okay, admittedly beyond this is a bit less defined, but we can deal with it when we get there.\n\nTurns out, the issue today is a lack of champions following steps 1-3, we can debate what the \ncorrect answer is to step (4) once we actually have people who want to be champions who are willing \nto (humbly) push an idea forward towards rough agreement of the world of technical bitcoiners \n(without which I highly doubt you'd ever see broader-community consensus).\n\nMatt",
"sig": "46ff6018f496a6319ba1fd1352d6fd99ac227bae30845087d580c7d29810b8bb51f80f0ce44f4f041852474ecf82cf1da4fa423936d6909c2abcded12ab46ee7"
}