📅 Original date posted:2022-04-24
📝 Original message:Hi Jorge
> Can we agree now that resisting a bip8 proposal is simpler and cleaner than resisting a speedy trial proposal?
Personally I'd rather stick to one challenge at a time :) Currently we are facing a contentious soft fork activation attempt of CTV using an alternative client which we expect [1] to be a Speedy Trial deployment. Once this is resolved we can discuss the lessons and observations that come out of this.
> Is there any PR to actively resist the proposal on bitcoin core?
Not currently. Unless this becomes really, really messy and starts to pose a true existential threat to Bitcoin itself I think it best that attempts to actively resist the proposal are done outside of Bitcoin Core in an alternative client(s). Contrary to what some CTV proponents say getting anything consensus related into Bitcoin Core is extremely difficult (especially at short notice). There is no BDFL or Linus Torvalds like figure, there are a large number of contributors (and maintainers) who all have differing personal views. Hence directing people to have this discussion on a particular PR in the Bitcoin Core repo seems to me to be counterproductive and a massive distraction to other work that is going on on Bitcoin Core. We've already started to see online attacks on Bitcoin Core by CTV proponents [2] claiming an "old guard trying to assert dictatorship over the Bitcoin protocol". It is nonsense of course but directing that nonsense to the Bitcoin Core repo is surely not the right way to go.
As I've said in previous emails there is a Libera (and Freenode now) IRC channel ##ursf that has been set up to discuss an alternative client. We'll get a conversation log up too. And of course we wait for confirmation on what the Speedy Trial deployment parameters for this attempted CTV soft fork are going to be.
[1]: https://blog.bitmex.com/op_ctv-summer-softfork-shenanigans/
[2]: https://twitter.com/ProofOfKeags/status/1517574210691887105?s=20&t=_jgRh3kkYP3kn1qLuzGXrQ
--
Michael Folkson
Email: michaelfolkson at [protonmail.com](http://protonmail.com/)
Keybase: michaelfolkson
PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3
------- Original Message -------
On Saturday, April 23rd, 2022 at 21:40, Jorge Timón <jtimon at jtimon.cc> wrote:
> I've been calling them "controversial softforks" for long.
> I hate to be right some times, but I guess I'm happy that I'm not the only one who distrusts jeremy rubin anymore.
>
> Can we agree now that resisting a bip8 proposal is simpler and cleaner than resisting a speedy trial proposal?
> I guess now we don't need to discuss it in hypothetical terms anymore, do we?
>
> Is there any PR to actively resist the proposal on bitcoin core?
>
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 8:16 PM Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Ok so we've had to scramble a bit as I don't think anyone except perhaps Jeremy thought that there would be a Speedy Trial signaling period for a CTV soft fork planned to start on May 5th [1]. That is two weeks away.
>>
>> (I have to take what he says at face value. I can understand why one would be skeptical.)
>>
>> Understandably this has angered and surprised a few people including some of those who have voiced opposition to a CTV soft fork activation being attempted in the first place [2].
>>
>> As I've said in a previous post [3] the Bitcoin Core 23.0 release candidate (and older versions) does not include any CTV code or CTV activation code. If a miner runs Bitcoin Core 23.0 out the box it will not signal for CTV. If by some chance CTV was to activate through some other software release Bitcoin Core releases would not apply CTV rules but they also wouldn't reject blocks that apply CTV rules. Hence it is prudent to prepare for an eventuality where the miner signaling threshold might be reached but the community wants to prevent the attempted soft fork from activating. (I personally don't think a 90 percent miner signaling threshold will be reached but I wouldn't want to bet Bitcoin's future on it.)
>>
>> I've tentatively labelled this effort a User Resisted Soft Fork (URSF) but I'm open to better names. I certainly don't want to discourage those who dislike or oppose UASFs from contributing to this effort and potentially ultimately running a URSF release. If you don't want this rushed CTV soft fork to activate we are all on the same side whatever we call it.
>>
>> For now I've set up a ##ursf channel on Libera IRC to monitor developments and discuss working on an additional release that if run may ultimately reject blocks that signal for CTV.
>>
>> The intention of this would be to provide additional direction and incentive to miners that the community does not want this soft fork to be activated. To repeat running a Bitcoin Core release will not signal for a CTV soft fork out the box. If a miner runs a Bitcoin Core release it will not signal for CTV.
>>
>> Apologies that this is rushed. But as always with Jeremy caution and conservatism seems to be thrown out the window and we have to react to that. It goes without saying that this is not how Bitcoin consensus changes should be attempted.
>>
>> [1]: https://rubin.io/bitcoin/2022/04/17/next-steps-bip119/
>> [2]: https://gist.github.com/michaelfolkson/352a503f4f9fc5de89af528d86a1b718
>> [3]: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020235.html
>>
>> --
>> Michael Folkson
>> Email: michaelfolkson at [protonmail.com](http://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/20220424/18ffef7b/attachment-0001.html>;
Michael Folkson [ARCHIVE] /
npub103…2kpam
2023-06-07 23:07:54
in reply to nevent1q…q6kv
Author Public Key
npub103ycruxnchhvja33mcnnkfdkgd0s7vlqlfkvufcdm5lnhpuh6f4q82kpamPublished at
2023-06-07 23:07:54Event JSON
{
"id": "c243aef4e383e5d9eb746dbc8ed3921d22fd0e58d556d01fa40bf87f811c6b38",
"pubkey": "7c4981f0d3c5eec97631de273b25b6435f0f33e0fa6cce270ddd3f3b8797d26a",
"created_at": 1686179274,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"2ad3d3403e1d63b96ae96eb1c1f2ba31d1c1dccbc5720a099543ffc26240da8b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"aae0a4e326ddfca53053102a5ac9a9434c847495de694fd48b622d6c8013bfbe",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-04-24\n📝 Original message:Hi Jorge\n\n\u003e Can we agree now that resisting a bip8 proposal is simpler and cleaner than resisting a speedy trial proposal?\n\nPersonally I'd rather stick to one challenge at a time :) Currently we are facing a contentious soft fork activation attempt of CTV using an alternative client which we expect [1] to be a Speedy Trial deployment. Once this is resolved we can discuss the lessons and observations that come out of this.\n\n\u003e Is there any PR to actively resist the proposal on bitcoin core?\n\nNot currently. Unless this becomes really, really messy and starts to pose a true existential threat to Bitcoin itself I think it best that attempts to actively resist the proposal are done outside of Bitcoin Core in an alternative client(s). Contrary to what some CTV proponents say getting anything consensus related into Bitcoin Core is extremely difficult (especially at short notice). There is no BDFL or Linus Torvalds like figure, there are a large number of contributors (and maintainers) who all have differing personal views. Hence directing people to have this discussion on a particular PR in the Bitcoin Core repo seems to me to be counterproductive and a massive distraction to other work that is going on on Bitcoin Core. We've already started to see online attacks on Bitcoin Core by CTV proponents [2] claiming an \"old guard trying to assert dictatorship over the Bitcoin protocol\". It is nonsense of course but directing that nonsense to the Bitcoin Core repo is surely not the right way to go.\n\nAs I've said in previous emails there is a Libera (and Freenode now) IRC channel ##ursf that has been set up to discuss an alternative client. We'll get a conversation log up too. And of course we wait for confirmation on what the Speedy Trial deployment parameters for this attempted CTV soft fork are going to be.\n\n[1]: https://blog.bitmex.com/op_ctv-summer-softfork-shenanigans/\n[2]: https://twitter.com/ProofOfKeags/status/1517574210691887105?s=20\u0026t=_jgRh3kkYP3kn1qLuzGXrQ\n\n--\nMichael Folkson\nEmail: michaelfolkson at [protonmail.com](http://protonmail.com/)\nKeybase: michaelfolkson\nPGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3\n\n------- Original Message -------\nOn Saturday, April 23rd, 2022 at 21:40, Jorge Timón \u003cjtimon at jtimon.cc\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e I've been calling them \"controversial softforks\" for long.\n\u003e I hate to be right some times, but I guess I'm happy that I'm not the only one who distrusts jeremy rubin anymore.\n\u003e\n\u003e Can we agree now that resisting a bip8 proposal is simpler and cleaner than resisting a speedy trial proposal?\n\u003e I guess now we don't need to discuss it in hypothetical terms anymore, do we?\n\u003e\n\u003e Is there any PR to actively resist the proposal on bitcoin core?\n\u003e\n\u003e On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 8:16 PM Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Ok so we've had to scramble a bit as I don't think anyone except perhaps Jeremy thought that there would be a Speedy Trial signaling period for a CTV soft fork planned to start on May 5th [1]. That is two weeks away.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e (I have to take what he says at face value. I can understand why one would be skeptical.)\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Understandably this has angered and surprised a few people including some of those who have voiced opposition to a CTV soft fork activation being attempted in the first place [2].\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e As I've said in a previous post [3] the Bitcoin Core 23.0 release candidate (and older versions) does not include any CTV code or CTV activation code. If a miner runs Bitcoin Core 23.0 out the box it will not signal for CTV. If by some chance CTV was to activate through some other software release Bitcoin Core releases would not apply CTV rules but they also wouldn't reject blocks that apply CTV rules. Hence it is prudent to prepare for an eventuality where the miner signaling threshold might be reached but the community wants to prevent the attempted soft fork from activating. (I personally don't think a 90 percent miner signaling threshold will be reached but I wouldn't want to bet Bitcoin's future on it.)\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I've tentatively labelled this effort a User Resisted Soft Fork (URSF) but I'm open to better names. I certainly don't want to discourage those who dislike or oppose UASFs from contributing to this effort and potentially ultimately running a URSF release. If you don't want this rushed CTV soft fork to activate we are all on the same side whatever we call it.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e For now I've set up a ##ursf channel on Libera IRC to monitor developments and discuss working on an additional release that if run may ultimately reject blocks that signal for CTV.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e The intention of this would be to provide additional direction and incentive to miners that the community does not want this soft fork to be activated. To repeat running a Bitcoin Core release will not signal for a CTV soft fork out the box. If a miner runs a Bitcoin Core release it will not signal for CTV.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Apologies that this is rushed. But as always with Jeremy caution and conservatism seems to be thrown out the window and we have to react to that. It goes without saying that this is not how Bitcoin consensus changes should be attempted.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e [1]: https://rubin.io/bitcoin/2022/04/17/next-steps-bip119/\n\u003e\u003e [2]: https://gist.github.com/michaelfolkson/352a503f4f9fc5de89af528d86a1b718\n\u003e\u003e [3]: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020235.html\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e --\n\u003e\u003e Michael Folkson\n\u003e\u003e Email: michaelfolkson at [protonmail.com](http://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-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220424/18ffef7b/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "2ae2bcea3310d54578c342c7cfbbf48fd5f1803e6945020bc80d7cc0058ae72b4822b0c1fd88ea889d500d7fc0572b5e295227721a4a9ed35ffdf7c19461cdc0"
}