📅 Original date posted:2022-05-02
📝 Original message:Jeremy,
The path to consensus is to propose things that everyone needs. Demand
comes from the market, not the designers.
Designers (engineers) solve problems with designs, but when they speculate
and lead the process, they create problems instead. Bitcoin is not a place
for speculative feature additions. Bitcoin cannot afford a culture of
additive features no one is asking for. Bitcoin thrives in a culture of
"NO." Rejection of change is Bitcoin's primary feature.
There is NO HOPE of EVER getting the majority of Bitcoin users to be able
to grasp, audit, and meaningfully consent to complicated new features, nor
to assess how they may interact with existing features in undesirable ways
or affect Bitcoin's incentive structure. To ignore this is a selfish
egomania that too many devs succumb to. The public already trusts Core devs
more than they probably should, and it is unwise to lean on that trust.
You are of course welcome to try and research and document all of the
details about how this plays out in practice, but you will fail to specify
a path to approval or any sort of clear governance structure for ensuring
that speculative features get into Bitcoin. You will seek and only see a
bias that allows you to get what YOU want. Until you focus on what everyone
wants, you will not reach consensus on anything.
Bitcoin changes should solve obvious problems and provide easy wins on
optimization, security, and privacy. Seek simplicity and efficiency, not
complication.
We have yet to saturate usage of the features we have added already in the
past 5 years. Use those. It is becoming apparent over time that many
features can be accomplished off-chain, or without a blockchain, or by
merely anchoring into currently available bitcoin transaction types.
There is simply no urgency or problem that any of the proposed soft fork
features are trying to address. This includes APO, CTV, sidechain
proposals, etc, etc.
Your aggression to your purpose is the antithesis of consensus, as it
indicates your incentives are external to it.
--
John Carvalho
CEO, Synonym.to <http://synonym.to/>;
On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 3:43 AM <
bitcoin-dev-request at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Send bitcoin-dev mailing list submissions to
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> bitcoin-dev-request at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> bitcoin-dev-owner at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of bitcoin-dev digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: What to do when contentious soft fork activations are
> attempted (Billy Tetrud)
> 2. Working Towards Consensus (Jeremy Rubin)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 14:14:29 -0500
> From: Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud at gmail.com>
> To: alicexbt <alicexbt at protonmail.com>, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] What to do when contentious soft fork
> activations are attempted
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAGpPWDb-T4OB0NKv7O5k9yhDQJtmag1QLqM1jJN9fQMoNTPLug at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> +1 alicexbt
>
> We of course want knowledgeable bitcoiners who aren't knowledgeable about a
> certain proposal to be skeptical. But what we don't want is for that
> natural skepticism-from-ignorance to be interpreted as opposition, or
> really a strong signal of any kind. Any thoughts from ignorance, whether
> self-aware or not, should be given small weight. It seems the vast majority
> of push back has been this kind of skepticism from ignorance. And to a
> certain degree I think we want to give time for understanding to those who
> have not participated in the first, second, third, etc round of discussion
> on a proposal. It may not be reasonable to say "you had the last 2 years of
> time to voice your concern".
>
> Now that CTV is being taken seriously as a proposal, we probably should
> give the community who is finally taking a serious look at it time to
> understand, get their questions answered, and come to terms with it. This
> is not to say that CTV as a technology or proposal has been rushed, or has
> not had enough work put into it, but rather that the community as a whole
> has not paid enough attention to it for long enough.
>
> The wrong approach is: "how do I yell more loudly next time I see something
> I'm uncomfortable with?" The right approach is to educate those who aren't
> educated on the proposal and gather consensus on what people think when
> they understand enough about it to contribute to that consensus. If you
> care about consensus, you should respect the consensus process and be ok
> with consensus being not your preferred outcome. If you don't care about
> consensus, then you're basically attacking the bitcoin community.
>
> On Sun, May 1, 2022 at 3:22 AM alicexbt via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > Maybe the whole thing worked as designed. Some users identified what was
> > going on, well known Bitcoin educators such as Andreas Antonopoulos,
> Jimmy
> > Song etc brought additional attention to the dangers, a URSF movement
> > started to gain momentum and those attempting a contentious soft fork
> > activation backed off. (Disappointingly Bitcoin Optech didn't cover my
> > previous posts to this mailing list 1
> > <
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-October/019535.html
> >,
> > 2
> > <
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-January/019728.html
> >,
> > 3
> > <
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020235.html
> >
> > highlighting the dangers many months ago or recent posts. Normally Optech
> > is very high signal.)
> >
> >
> > Some users have been misled and there is nothing great being achieved by
> > doing this on social media. Andreas is clueless about BIP 119 and other
> > covenant proposals. He is spreading misinformation and some of the URSF
> > enthusiasts do not understand what are they even opposing or going to run
> > with risks involved.
> >
> >
> > Answering the subject of this email: "What to do when contentious soft
> > forks activations are attempted?"
> >
> > - Do not consider something contentious because someone said it on
> mailing
> > list
> > - Do not spread misinformation
> > - Read all posts in detail with different opinions
> > - Avoid personal attacks
> > - Look at the technical details, code etc. and comment on things that
> > could be improved
> >
> >
> >
> > /dev/fd0
> >
> > Sent with ProtonMail <https://protonmail.com/>; secure email.
> >
> > ------- Original Message -------
> > On Saturday, April 30th, 2022 at 3:23 PM, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev
> > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> >
> >
> > I?ve been in two minds on whether to completely move on to other topics
> or
> > to formulate some thoughts on the recent attempt to activate a
> contentious
> > soft fork. In the interests of those of us who have wasted
> > days/weeks/months of our time on this (with no personal upside) and who
> > don?t want to repeat this exercise again I thought I should at least
> raise
> > the issue for discussion of what should be done differently if this is
> > tried again in future.
> >
> > This could be Jeremy with OP_CTV at a later point (assuming it is still
> > contentious) or anyone who wants to pick up a single opcode that is not
> yet
> > activated on Bitcoin and try to get miners to signal for it bypassing
> > technical concerns from many developers, bypassing Bitcoin Core and
> > bypassing users.
> >
> > Maybe the whole thing worked as designed. Some users identified what was
> > going on, well known Bitcoin educators such as Andreas Antonopoulos,
> Jimmy
> > Song etc brought additional attention to the dangers, a URSF movement
> > started to gain momentum and those attempting a contentious soft fork
> > activation backed off. (Disappointingly Bitcoin Optech didn't cover my
> > previous posts to this mailing list 1
> > <
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-October/019535.html
> >,
> > 2
> > <
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-January/019728.html
> >,
> > 3
> > <
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020235.html
> >
> > highlighting the dangers many months ago or recent posts. Normally Optech
> > is very high signal.)
> >
> > Alternatively this was the first time a contentious soft fork activation
> > was attempted, we were all woefully unprepared for it and none of us knew
> > what we were doing.
> >
> > I?m unsure on the above. I?d be interested to hear thoughts. What I am
> > sure of is that it is totally unacceptable for one individual to bring
> the
> > entire Bitcoin network to the brink of a chain split. There has to be a
> > personal cost to that individual dissuading them from trying it again
> > otherwise they?re motivated to try it again every week/month. Perhaps the
> > personal cost that the community is now prepared if that individual tries
> > it again is sufficient. I?m not sure. Obviously Bitcoin is a
> permissionless
> > network, Bitcoin Core and other open source projects are easily forked
> and
> > no authority (I?m certainly no authority) can stop things like this
> > happening again.
> >
> > I?ll follow the responses if people have thoughts (I won't be responding
> > to the instigators of this contentious soft fork activation attempt) but
> > other than that I?d like to move on to other things than contentious soft
> > fork activations. Thanks to those who have expressed concerns publicly
> (too
> > many to name, Bob McElrath was often wording arguments better than I
> could)
> > and who were willing to engage with the URSF conversation. If an
> individual
> > can go directly to miners to get soft forks activated bypassing technical
> > concerns from many developers, bypassing Bitcoin Core and bypassing users
> > Bitcoin is fundamentally broken. The reason I still have hope that it
> isn't
> > is that during a period of general apathy some people were willing to
> stand
> > up and actively resist it.
> >
> > --
> > Michael Folkson
> > Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com
> > Keybase: michaelfolkson
> > PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220501/7158d8ed/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 19:43:29 -0700
> From: Jeremy Rubin <jeremy.l.rubin at gmail.com>
> To: Bitcoin development mailing list
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Working Towards Consensus
> Message-ID:
> <CAD5xwhhdEgADWwLwbjRKp-UFCw9hHjDsc-L=pkiwW=
> bmhFqBNw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Developers,
>
> There is much to say about the events of the last two weeks and the
> response to them. I've been searching for the right words to share here,
> but I think it best that short of a more thoughtful writeup I start with a
> timely small step with the below comments.
>
> First, let me be clear: I am not advancing a Speedy Trial(ST) activation of
> Bitcoin Improvement Proposal-119 (BIP-119) CheckTemplateVerify (CTV) at
> this time.
>
> I'm skipping any discussion of the drama here. Most of you are interested
> in developing Bitcoin, not drama. Let's try to keep this thread focused on
> the actual work. I'll make some limited comments on the drama in a separate
> thread, for those who care to hear from me on the subject directly.
>
> I believe that the disinformation spread around my post ("7 Theses on a
> next step for BIP-119"[0]) created three main negative outcomes within the
> Bitcoin community:
>
> 1. Confusion about how Bitcoin's "technical consensus" works and how
> changes are "approved".
> 2. Fear about the safety of CTV and covenants more broadly.
> 3. Misunderstandings around the properties of Speedy Trial, User Activated
> Soft Fork (UASF), User Resisted Soft Fork (URSF), Soft Forks, Hard Forks,
> and more.
>
> While I cannot take responsibility for the spread of the disinformation, I
> do apologize to anyone dealing with it for the role my actions have had in
> leading to the current circumstance.
>
> I personally take some solace in knowing that the only way out of this is
> through it. The conversations happening now seem to have been more or less
> inevitable, this has brought them to the surface, and as a technical
> community we are able to address them head on if -- as individuals and
> collectively -- we choose to. And, viewed through a certain lens, these
> conversations represent incredibly important opportunities to participate
> in defining the future of Bitcoin that would not be happening otherwise.
> Ultimately, I am grateful to live in a time where I am able to play a small
> role in such an important process. This is the work.
>
> In the coming months, I expect the discourse to be messy, but I think the
> work is clear cut that we should undertake at least the following:
>
> 1. Make great efforts to better document how Bitcoin's technical consensus
> process works today, how it can be improved, and how changes may be
> formally reviewed while still being unofficially advanced.
> 2. Work diligently to address the concerns many in the community have
> around the negative potential of covenants and better explain the
> trade-offs between levels of functionality.
> 3. Renew conversations about activation and release mechanisms and
> re-examine our priors around why Speedy Trial may have been acceptable for
> Taproot, was not acceptable for BIP-119, but may not be optimal long
> term[1], and work towards processes that better captures the Bitcoin
> network's diverse interests and requirements.
> 4. Work towards thoroughly systematizing knowledge around covenant
> technologies so that in the coming months we may work towards delivering a
> coherent pathway for the Bitcoin technical community to evaluate and put up
> for offer to the broader community an upgrade or set of upgrades to improve
> Bitcoin's capabilities for self sovereignty, privacy, scalability, and
> decentralization.
>
> This may not be the easiest path to take, but I believe that this work is
> critical to the future of Bitcoin. I welcome all reading this to share your
> thoughts with this list on how we might work towards consensus going
> forward, including any criticisms of my observations and recommendations
> above. While I would expect nothing less than passionate debate when it
> comes to Bitcoin, remember that at the end of the day we all largely share
> a mission to make the world a freer place, even if we disagree about how we
> get there.
>
> Yours truly,
>
> Jeremy
>
> [0]: https://rubin.io/bitcoin/2022/04/17/next-steps-bip119/
> [1]: http://r6.ca/blog/20210615T191422Z.html I quite enjoyed Roconnor's
> detailed post on Speedy Trial
>
> --
> @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>;
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220501/9009e65d/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 84, Issue 4
> ******************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220502/82f69955/attachment-0001.html>;
John Carvalho [ARCHIVE] /
npub1qg…nqm4r
2023-06-07 23:09:02
in reply to nevent1q…z2ue
Author Public Key
npub1qg5r4lja0e34twn6psh49qlrzj0k28dtxxw0k4fag6sarqprfm2s7nqm4rPublished at
2023-06-07 23:09:02Event JSON
{
"id": "cb14d7d9dbe1b496e44fd7ac099744447c7d71546b041dbbf7f027a2d0bf12ca",
"pubkey": "02283afe5d7e6355ba7a0c2f5283e3149f651dab319cfb553d46a1d180234ed5",
"created_at": 1686179342,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"0fc61ca357b6db513f16fc84541ffd79406f504352ff64bbfc1e816d8c72bfcf",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"8f418fa7252f9f4d4b858829056f1edcc059dafd5dc258256bc0dda2d9127c18",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"372c316761360b4ea20f2d7e81a59363b7e45b8e945a5381c3122049c2c4b84a"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-05-02\n📝 Original message:Jeremy,\n\nThe path to consensus is to propose things that everyone needs. Demand\ncomes from the market, not the designers.\n\nDesigners (engineers) solve problems with designs, but when they speculate\nand lead the process, they create problems instead. Bitcoin is not a place\nfor speculative feature additions. Bitcoin cannot afford a culture of\nadditive features no one is asking for. Bitcoin thrives in a culture of\n\"NO.\" Rejection of change is Bitcoin's primary feature.\n\nThere is NO HOPE of EVER getting the majority of Bitcoin users to be able\nto grasp, audit, and meaningfully consent to complicated new features, nor\nto assess how they may interact with existing features in undesirable ways\nor affect Bitcoin's incentive structure. To ignore this is a selfish\negomania that too many devs succumb to. The public already trusts Core devs\nmore than they probably should, and it is unwise to lean on that trust.\n\nYou are of course welcome to try and research and document all of the\ndetails about how this plays out in practice, but you will fail to specify\na path to approval or any sort of clear governance structure for ensuring\nthat speculative features get into Bitcoin. You will seek and only see a\nbias that allows you to get what YOU want. Until you focus on what everyone\nwants, you will not reach consensus on anything.\n\nBitcoin changes should solve obvious problems and provide easy wins on\noptimization, security, and privacy. Seek simplicity and efficiency, not\ncomplication.\n\nWe have yet to saturate usage of the features we have added already in the\npast 5 years. Use those. It is becoming apparent over time that many\nfeatures can be accomplished off-chain, or without a blockchain, or by\nmerely anchoring into currently available bitcoin transaction types.\n\nThere is simply no urgency or problem that any of the proposed soft fork\nfeatures are trying to address. This includes APO, CTV, sidechain\nproposals, etc, etc.\n\nYour aggression to your purpose is the antithesis of consensus, as it\nindicates your incentives are external to it.\n\n--\nJohn Carvalho\nCEO, Synonym.to \u003chttp://synonym.to/\u003e\n\n\nOn Mon, May 2, 2022 at 3:43 AM \u003c\nbitcoin-dev-request at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Send bitcoin-dev mailing list submissions to\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\n\u003e To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to\n\u003e bitcoin-dev-request at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\n\u003e You can reach the person managing the list at\n\u003e bitcoin-dev-owner at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\n\u003e When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific\n\u003e than \"Re: Contents of bitcoin-dev digest...\"\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Today's Topics:\n\u003e\n\u003e 1. Re: What to do when contentious soft fork activations are\n\u003e attempted (Billy Tetrud)\n\u003e 2. Working Towards Consensus (Jeremy Rubin)\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e\n\u003e Message: 1\n\u003e Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 14:14:29 -0500\n\u003e From: Billy Tetrud \u003cbilly.tetrud at gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e To: alicexbt \u003calicexbt at protonmail.com\u003e, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion\n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] What to do when contentious soft fork\n\u003e activations are attempted\n\u003e Message-ID:\n\u003e \u003c\n\u003e CAGpPWDb-T4OB0NKv7O5k9yhDQJtmag1QLqM1jJN9fQMoNTPLug at mail.gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=\"utf-8\"\n\u003e\n\u003e +1 alicexbt\n\u003e\n\u003e We of course want knowledgeable bitcoiners who aren't knowledgeable about a\n\u003e certain proposal to be skeptical. But what we don't want is for that\n\u003e natural skepticism-from-ignorance to be interpreted as opposition, or\n\u003e really a strong signal of any kind. Any thoughts from ignorance, whether\n\u003e self-aware or not, should be given small weight. It seems the vast majority\n\u003e of push back has been this kind of skepticism from ignorance. And to a\n\u003e certain degree I think we want to give time for understanding to those who\n\u003e have not participated in the first, second, third, etc round of discussion\n\u003e on a proposal. It may not be reasonable to say \"you had the last 2 years of\n\u003e time to voice your concern\".\n\u003e\n\u003e Now that CTV is being taken seriously as a proposal, we probably should\n\u003e give the community who is finally taking a serious look at it time to\n\u003e understand, get their questions answered, and come to terms with it. This\n\u003e is not to say that CTV as a technology or proposal has been rushed, or has\n\u003e not had enough work put into it, but rather that the community as a whole\n\u003e has not paid enough attention to it for long enough.\n\u003e\n\u003e The wrong approach is: \"how do I yell more loudly next time I see something\n\u003e I'm uncomfortable with?\" The right approach is to educate those who aren't\n\u003e educated on the proposal and gather consensus on what people think when\n\u003e they understand enough about it to contribute to that consensus. If you\n\u003e care about consensus, you should respect the consensus process and be ok\n\u003e with consensus being not your preferred outcome. If you don't care about\n\u003e consensus, then you're basically attacking the bitcoin community.\n\u003e\n\u003e On Sun, May 1, 2022 at 3:22 AM alicexbt via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e Hi Michael,\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Maybe the whole thing worked as designed. Some users identified what was\n\u003e \u003e going on, well known Bitcoin educators such as Andreas Antonopoulos,\n\u003e Jimmy\n\u003e \u003e Song etc brought additional attention to the dangers, a URSF movement\n\u003e \u003e started to gain momentum and those attempting a contentious soft fork\n\u003e \u003e activation backed off. (Disappointingly Bitcoin Optech didn't cover my\n\u003e \u003e previous posts to this mailing list 1\n\u003e \u003e \u003c\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-October/019535.html\n\u003e \u003e,\n\u003e \u003e 2\n\u003e \u003e \u003c\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-January/019728.html\n\u003e \u003e,\n\u003e \u003e 3\n\u003e \u003e \u003c\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020235.html\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e highlighting the dangers many months ago or recent posts. Normally Optech\n\u003e \u003e is very high signal.)\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Some users have been misled and there is nothing great being achieved by\n\u003e \u003e doing this on social media. Andreas is clueless about BIP 119 and other\n\u003e \u003e covenant proposals. He is spreading misinformation and some of the URSF\n\u003e \u003e enthusiasts do not understand what are they even opposing or going to run\n\u003e \u003e with risks involved.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Answering the subject of this email: \"What to do when contentious soft\n\u003e \u003e forks activations are attempted?\"\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e - Do not consider something contentious because someone said it on\n\u003e mailing\n\u003e \u003e list\n\u003e \u003e - Do not spread misinformation\n\u003e \u003e - Read all posts in detail with different opinions\n\u003e \u003e - Avoid personal attacks\n\u003e \u003e - Look at the technical details, code etc. and comment on things that\n\u003e \u003e could be improved\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e /dev/fd0\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Sent with ProtonMail \u003chttps://protonmail.com/\u003e secure email.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e ------- Original Message -------\n\u003e \u003e On Saturday, April 30th, 2022 at 3:23 PM, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e I?ve been in two minds on whether to completely move on to other topics\n\u003e or\n\u003e \u003e to formulate some thoughts on the recent attempt to activate a\n\u003e contentious\n\u003e \u003e soft fork. In the interests of those of us who have wasted\n\u003e \u003e days/weeks/months of our time on this (with no personal upside) and who\n\u003e \u003e don?t want to repeat this exercise again I thought I should at least\n\u003e raise\n\u003e \u003e the issue for discussion of what should be done differently if this is\n\u003e \u003e tried again in future.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e This could be Jeremy with OP_CTV at a later point (assuming it is still\n\u003e \u003e contentious) or anyone who wants to pick up a single opcode that is not\n\u003e yet\n\u003e \u003e activated on Bitcoin and try to get miners to signal for it bypassing\n\u003e \u003e technical concerns from many developers, bypassing Bitcoin Core and\n\u003e \u003e bypassing users.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Maybe the whole thing worked as designed. Some users identified what was\n\u003e \u003e going on, well known Bitcoin educators such as Andreas Antonopoulos,\n\u003e Jimmy\n\u003e \u003e Song etc brought additional attention to the dangers, a URSF movement\n\u003e \u003e started to gain momentum and those attempting a contentious soft fork\n\u003e \u003e activation backed off. (Disappointingly Bitcoin Optech didn't cover my\n\u003e \u003e previous posts to this mailing list 1\n\u003e \u003e \u003c\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-October/019535.html\n\u003e \u003e,\n\u003e \u003e 2\n\u003e \u003e \u003c\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-January/019728.html\n\u003e \u003e,\n\u003e \u003e 3\n\u003e \u003e \u003c\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020235.html\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e highlighting the dangers many months ago or recent posts. Normally Optech\n\u003e \u003e is very high signal.)\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Alternatively this was the first time a contentious soft fork activation\n\u003e \u003e was attempted, we were all woefully unprepared for it and none of us knew\n\u003e \u003e what we were doing.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e I?m unsure on the above. I?d be interested to hear thoughts. What I am\n\u003e \u003e sure of is that it is totally unacceptable for one individual to bring\n\u003e the\n\u003e \u003e entire Bitcoin network to the brink of a chain split. There has to be a\n\u003e \u003e personal cost to that individual dissuading them from trying it again\n\u003e \u003e otherwise they?re motivated to try it again every week/month. Perhaps the\n\u003e \u003e personal cost that the community is now prepared if that individual tries\n\u003e \u003e it again is sufficient. I?m not sure. Obviously Bitcoin is a\n\u003e permissionless\n\u003e \u003e network, Bitcoin Core and other open source projects are easily forked\n\u003e and\n\u003e \u003e no authority (I?m certainly no authority) can stop things like this\n\u003e \u003e happening again.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e I?ll follow the responses if people have thoughts (I won't be responding\n\u003e \u003e to the instigators of this contentious soft fork activation attempt) but\n\u003e \u003e other than that I?d like to move on to other things than contentious soft\n\u003e \u003e fork activations. Thanks to those who have expressed concerns publicly\n\u003e (too\n\u003e \u003e many to name, Bob McElrath was often wording arguments better than I\n\u003e could)\n\u003e \u003e and who were willing to engage with the URSF conversation. If an\n\u003e individual\n\u003e \u003e can go directly to miners to get soft forks activated bypassing technical\n\u003e \u003e concerns from many developers, bypassing Bitcoin Core and bypassing users\n\u003e \u003e Bitcoin is fundamentally broken. The reason I still have hope that it\n\u003e isn't\n\u003e \u003e is that during a period of general apathy some people were willing to\n\u003e stand\n\u003e \u003e up and actively resist it.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e --\n\u003e \u003e Michael Folkson\n\u003e \u003e Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com\n\u003e \u003e Keybase: michaelfolkson\n\u003e \u003e PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e -------------- next part --------------\n\u003e An HTML attachment was scrubbed...\n\u003e URL: \u003c\n\u003e http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220501/7158d8ed/attachment-0001.html\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------\n\u003e\n\u003e Message: 2\n\u003e Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 19:43:29 -0700\n\u003e From: Jeremy Rubin \u003cjeremy.l.rubin at gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e To: Bitcoin development mailing list\n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Working Towards Consensus\n\u003e Message-ID:\n\u003e \u003cCAD5xwhhdEgADWwLwbjRKp-UFCw9hHjDsc-L=pkiwW=\n\u003e bmhFqBNw at mail.gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=\"utf-8\"\n\u003e\n\u003e Developers,\n\u003e\n\u003e There is much to say about the events of the last two weeks and the\n\u003e response to them. I've been searching for the right words to share here,\n\u003e but I think it best that short of a more thoughtful writeup I start with a\n\u003e timely small step with the below comments.\n\u003e\n\u003e First, let me be clear: I am not advancing a Speedy Trial(ST) activation of\n\u003e Bitcoin Improvement Proposal-119 (BIP-119) CheckTemplateVerify (CTV) at\n\u003e this time.\n\u003e\n\u003e I'm skipping any discussion of the drama here. Most of you are interested\n\u003e in developing Bitcoin, not drama. Let's try to keep this thread focused on\n\u003e the actual work. I'll make some limited comments on the drama in a separate\n\u003e thread, for those who care to hear from me on the subject directly.\n\u003e\n\u003e I believe that the disinformation spread around my post (\"7 Theses on a\n\u003e next step for BIP-119\"[0]) created three main negative outcomes within the\n\u003e Bitcoin community:\n\u003e\n\u003e 1. Confusion about how Bitcoin's \"technical consensus\" works and how\n\u003e changes are \"approved\".\n\u003e 2. Fear about the safety of CTV and covenants more broadly.\n\u003e 3. Misunderstandings around the properties of Speedy Trial, User Activated\n\u003e Soft Fork (UASF), User Resisted Soft Fork (URSF), Soft Forks, Hard Forks,\n\u003e and more.\n\u003e\n\u003e While I cannot take responsibility for the spread of the disinformation, I\n\u003e do apologize to anyone dealing with it for the role my actions have had in\n\u003e leading to the current circumstance.\n\u003e\n\u003e I personally take some solace in knowing that the only way out of this is\n\u003e through it. The conversations happening now seem to have been more or less\n\u003e inevitable, this has brought them to the surface, and as a technical\n\u003e community we are able to address them head on if -- as individuals and\n\u003e collectively -- we choose to. And, viewed through a certain lens, these\n\u003e conversations represent incredibly important opportunities to participate\n\u003e in defining the future of Bitcoin that would not be happening otherwise.\n\u003e Ultimately, I am grateful to live in a time where I am able to play a small\n\u003e role in such an important process. This is the work.\n\u003e\n\u003e In the coming months, I expect the discourse to be messy, but I think the\n\u003e work is clear cut that we should undertake at least the following:\n\u003e\n\u003e 1. Make great efforts to better document how Bitcoin's technical consensus\n\u003e process works today, how it can be improved, and how changes may be\n\u003e formally reviewed while still being unofficially advanced.\n\u003e 2. Work diligently to address the concerns many in the community have\n\u003e around the negative potential of covenants and better explain the\n\u003e trade-offs between levels of functionality.\n\u003e 3. Renew conversations about activation and release mechanisms and\n\u003e re-examine our priors around why Speedy Trial may have been acceptable for\n\u003e Taproot, was not acceptable for BIP-119, but may not be optimal long\n\u003e term[1], and work towards processes that better captures the Bitcoin\n\u003e network's diverse interests and requirements.\n\u003e 4. Work towards thoroughly systematizing knowledge around covenant\n\u003e technologies so that in the coming months we may work towards delivering a\n\u003e coherent pathway for the Bitcoin technical community to evaluate and put up\n\u003e for offer to the broader community an upgrade or set of upgrades to improve\n\u003e Bitcoin's capabilities for self sovereignty, privacy, scalability, and\n\u003e decentralization.\n\u003e\n\u003e This may not be the easiest path to take, but I believe that this work is\n\u003e critical to the future of Bitcoin. I welcome all reading this to share your\n\u003e thoughts with this list on how we might work towards consensus going\n\u003e forward, including any criticisms of my observations and recommendations\n\u003e above. While I would expect nothing less than passionate debate when it\n\u003e comes to Bitcoin, remember that at the end of the day we all largely share\n\u003e a mission to make the world a freer place, even if we disagree about how we\n\u003e get there.\n\u003e\n\u003e Yours truly,\n\u003e\n\u003e Jeremy\n\u003e\n\u003e [0]: https://rubin.io/bitcoin/2022/04/17/next-steps-bip119/\n\u003e [1]: http://r6.ca/blog/20210615T191422Z.html I quite enjoyed Roconnor's\n\u003e detailed post on Speedy Trial\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e @JeremyRubin \u003chttps://twitter.com/JeremyRubin\u003e\n\u003e -------------- next part --------------\n\u003e An HTML attachment was scrubbed...\n\u003e URL: \u003c\n\u003e http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220501/9009e65d/attachment.html\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------\n\u003e\n\u003e Subject: Digest Footer\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------\n\u003e\n\u003e End of bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 84, Issue 4\n\u003e ******************************************\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220502/82f69955/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "373ce15ea414c0afe3db1e627f3d776bb1e26786eba478bd671a75df80c0bddee25c050ded42136050ab8ef1c9fc868ebd8cc7fc8f3a47d0e87020f6d84dcd6b"
}