📅 Original date posted:2022-05-01
📝 Original message:On Sun, May 1, 2022, 09:22 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.
>
Clueless and spreading disinformation, you say? What misinformation, could
you explain?
> - Avoid personal attacks
>
Could accusing someone of apreading misinformation without prove and
calling him clueless be considered a personal attack?
What do we do with hypocrites and liars?
People who knowingly lie to push their own agenda, how do we protect
against those?
> /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/20220501/4d78ed9f/attachment-0001.html>;
Jorge Timón [ARCHIVE] /
npub1fx…cl2d8
2023-06-07 23:08:39
in reply to nevent1q…rml0
Author Public Key
npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8Published at
2023-06-07 23:08:39Event JSON
{
"id": "66447ca24a95c64e6010f3659e07685730143e64132fc049e7aefcb6331fcdb1",
"pubkey": "498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84",
"created_at": 1686179319,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"2c7446924006565199055354ceaa67a177a6b76cd51f01f2e04527cea83d385a",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"b855974235ba2521a2a8360746b523755a5211912cff651c5ad99365561a69da",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"745e2723e72d7ded3f0dd293d710b706cd302ab8476983c292d4bdb7f9c5d366"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-05-01\n📝 Original message:On Sun, May 1, 2022, 09:22 alicexbt via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Hi Michael,\n\u003e\n\u003e Maybe the whole thing worked as designed. Some users identified what was\n\u003e going on, well known Bitcoin educators such as Andreas Antonopoulos, Jimmy\n\u003e Song etc brought additional attention to the dangers, a URSF movement\n\u003e started to gain momentum and those attempting a contentious soft fork\n\u003e activation backed off. (Disappointingly Bitcoin Optech didn't cover my\n\u003e previous posts to this mailing list 1\n\u003e \u003chttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-October/019535.html\u003e,\n\u003e 2\n\u003e \u003chttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-January/019728.html\u003e,\n\u003e 3\n\u003e \u003chttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020235.html\u003e\n\u003e highlighting the dangers many months ago or recent posts. Normally Optech\n\u003e is very high signal.)\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Some users have been misled and there is nothing great being achieved by\n\u003e doing this on social media. Andreas is clueless about BIP 119 and other\n\u003e covenant proposals. He is spreading misinformation and some of the URSF\n\u003e enthusiasts do not understand what are they even opposing or going to run\n\u003e with risks involved.\n\u003e\nClueless and spreading disinformation, you say? What misinformation, could\nyou explain?\n\n\n\u003e - Avoid personal attacks\n\u003e\nCould accusing someone of apreading misinformation without prove and\ncalling him clueless be considered a personal attack?\nWhat do we do with hypocrites and liars?\nPeople who knowingly lie to push their own agenda, how do we protect\nagainst those?\n\n\n\u003e /dev/fd0\n\u003e\n\u003e Sent with ProtonMail \u003chttps://protonmail.com/\u003e secure email.\n\u003e\n\u003e ------- Original Message -------\n\u003e On Saturday, April 30th, 2022 at 3:23 PM, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e I’ve been in two minds on whether to completely move on to other topics or\n\u003e to formulate some thoughts on the recent attempt to activate a contentious\n\u003e soft fork. In the interests of those of us who have wasted\n\u003e days/weeks/months of our time on this (with no personal upside) and who\n\u003e don’t want to repeat this exercise again I thought I should at least raise\n\u003e the issue for discussion of what should be done differently if this is\n\u003e tried again in future.\n\u003e\n\u003e This could be Jeremy with OP_CTV at a later point (assuming it is still\n\u003e contentious) or anyone who wants to pick up a single opcode that is not yet\n\u003e activated on Bitcoin and try to get miners to signal for it bypassing\n\u003e technical concerns from many developers, bypassing Bitcoin Core and\n\u003e bypassing users.\n\u003e\n\u003e Maybe the whole thing worked as designed. Some users identified what was\n\u003e going on, well known Bitcoin educators such as Andreas Antonopoulos, Jimmy\n\u003e Song etc brought additional attention to the dangers, a URSF movement\n\u003e started to gain momentum and those attempting a contentious soft fork\n\u003e activation backed off. (Disappointingly Bitcoin Optech didn't cover my\n\u003e previous posts to this mailing list 1\n\u003e \u003chttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-October/019535.html\u003e,\n\u003e 2\n\u003e \u003chttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-January/019728.html\u003e,\n\u003e 3\n\u003e \u003chttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020235.html\u003e\n\u003e highlighting the dangers many months ago or recent posts. Normally Optech\n\u003e is very high signal.)\n\u003e\n\u003e Alternatively this was the first time a contentious soft fork activation\n\u003e was attempted, we were all woefully unprepared for it and none of us knew\n\u003e what we were doing.\n\u003e\n\u003e I’m unsure on the above. I’d be interested to hear thoughts. What I am\n\u003e sure of is that it is totally unacceptable for one individual to bring the\n\u003e entire Bitcoin network to the brink of a chain split. There has to be a\n\u003e personal cost to that individual dissuading them from trying it again\n\u003e otherwise they’re motivated to try it again every week/month. Perhaps the\n\u003e personal cost that the community is now prepared if that individual tries\n\u003e it again is sufficient. I’m not sure. Obviously Bitcoin is a permissionless\n\u003e network, Bitcoin Core and other open source projects are easily forked and\n\u003e no authority (I’m certainly no authority) can stop things like this\n\u003e happening again.\n\u003e\n\u003e I’ll follow the responses if people have thoughts (I won't be responding\n\u003e to the instigators of this contentious soft fork activation attempt) but\n\u003e other than that I’d like to move on to other things than contentious soft\n\u003e fork activations. Thanks to those who have expressed concerns publicly (too\n\u003e many to name, Bob McElrath was often wording arguments better than I could)\n\u003e and who were willing to engage with the URSF conversation. If an individual\n\u003e can go directly to miners to get soft forks activated bypassing technical\n\u003e concerns from many developers, bypassing Bitcoin Core and bypassing users\n\u003e Bitcoin is fundamentally broken. The reason I still have hope that it isn't\n\u003e is that during a period of general apathy some people were willing to stand\n\u003e up and actively resist it.\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e Michael Folkson\n\u003e Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com\n\u003e Keybase: michaelfolkson\n\u003e PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3\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-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220501/4d78ed9f/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "da14666f68ccf25d37d9fecb740caa3eb86abd8f1f8c34653366af8eb08dfe9a44201ea363b81f57dbd728359e63066c9ebb8d97fbd428cd02356be19348edb4"
}