Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 192B1C002D for ; Sat, 23 Apr 2022 05:11:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8DF283F42 for ; Sat, 23 Apr 2022 05:11:10 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dsca4llonYQI for ; Sat, 23 Apr 2022 05:11:10 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-ej1-x634.google.com (mail-ej1-x634.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::634]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E55183F05 for ; Sat, 23 Apr 2022 05:11:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ej1-x634.google.com with SMTP id u15so19895167ejf.11 for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 22:11:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=ID+kfMLpW1po7f8267u76aoZX1kS7V/NKVqRFlj0LpM=; b=CLz78QXgvXpQSsC4mB2Qf0obASCD5d7bRMSmxKw9e/SbnAw3KDRahnjYyXCOl5HF1X Xn4pvlLd83CS0XK7TG8GeMyGXiTys9s+CaQBbcTIaYoGGsj/rK5Dp5hEoUCsCzYaVyLX yOB8EJM4UTBEm5L1C9yvDk2n2xKZ2rp7xw/DrJwOQNWmdOgW1yo8GSNOazFi27htkNtS Ir5NRrpoakBPkCWBWP9gaFWTUW/nOaACF/JI+eIAigwNwn6oNTXTCclQwPHOZrxqWQI3 /9KNU31FyBDaNYsTEiAS96OWx5vZkUP3A8IcDpIfBT0bIKhlCVa7K1RN23jklqwhLnF2 J/gw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=ID+kfMLpW1po7f8267u76aoZX1kS7V/NKVqRFlj0LpM=; b=SYQcnSxrhfgikhAzcyhZ+a4uFz6c/wado1WEjxc7AeAlNfqxd6WJLjgizSU5HyHegs e0fXHKElad95wOePo1k+VJOOwsqguX8XsOSEcGDlRD6QCds1ADSx08BsTSdtS9wjWXpm 0qgVs9nRxBrX3vRewZcbq2yxfHPN28dx1G1daYC5P9VpK9tbiVLhiTsIM3MqjdfuulwV +vatjukoWHaiDTCluojobaz8fY5eS/NdugYNoPihwHvgZ3CGGcB6N2yJyIoliNajyEb0 suaaBQq+JdWT/8655KbHKk2rjttcev3XbyZp1cjN5o1r2Y8WgzOEe1dfs/FkKmSnWfMR zCNA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5326sX4QV7oG6RnmjbixL6lhm9V7b15jio9tKsAjzNMFLm/Cr5Zk S6zFFr1C8aL6XjjeULnCVt1LMgk5BMsXax9f7IE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyNdPkdxUCV1P2TR9Zh8k6/6b0y0RjTjPVdg9PhdRqPZuQC5R/1nTGf0V44YNWXsRSIavBBWvBYOHi0C6YRJSA= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:2991:b0:6cf:6b24:e92f with SMTP id x17-20020a170906299100b006cf6b24e92fmr7049207eje.748.1650690667721; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 22:11:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Billy Tetrud Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2022 00:10:53 -0500 Message-ID: To: Michael Folkson , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e2389d05dd4b5ecc" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 23 Apr 2022 09:04:59 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] What to expect in the next few weeks X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2022 05:11:11 -0000 --000000000000e2389d05dd4b5ecc Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > assuming people pay attention and listen to the individuals who were trusted during that period Bitcoin is not run by a group of authorities of olde. By asking people to trust "those.. around in 2015-2017" you're asking people to blindly trust authorities. This, in my strong opinion, goes against the bitcoin ethos, and is an incredibly harmful way to push for your agenda. I'd very much recommend you reassess the way you're going about what you're trying to do. I fear you risk losing respect in the community by implying without any evidence that certain people are "taking advantage" of some situation and attempting "to confuse". On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 12:33 PM Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > If the next few weeks go how I fear they will it could get messy. If you > care about Bitcoin's consensus rules I'd request you pay attention so you > can make an informed view on what to run and what to support. For those of > you who were around in 2015-2017 you'll know what to expect. The right > outcome endured in 2017 and I'm sure the right outcome will endure here > assuming people pay attention and listen to the individuals who were > trusted during that period. There are always a large number of motivated > parties who are incentivized to break nodes off from Bitcoin and may seek > to take advantage of a contentious soft fork activation attempt. > > Remember that if all the information is presented to users in a clear way > well ahead of time then they can make their own mind up. I fear that things > will be made as convoluted as possible in a way intended to confuse and > information will be withheld until the last minute. When in doubt it is > generally better to rely on the status quo and tried and trusted. In this > case that would be Bitcoin Core. Alternative releases such as those seeking > to attempt to activate CTV or indeed those seeking to resist the activation > of CTV really should only be considered if you are informed on exactly what > you are running. > > If you are interested in the effort to resist the contentious soft fork > activation attempt of CTV please join ##ursf on Libera IRC. > > Have a good weekend. Hopefully those behind this contentious soft fork > activation attempt will see sense and we can go back to more productive > things than resisting contentious soft forks. > > -- > 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@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --000000000000e2389d05dd4b5ecc Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0assuming people pay = attention and listen to the individuals who were trusted during that period=

Bitcoin is not run= by a group of authorities of olde. By asking people to trust "those..= around in 2015-2017" you're asking people to blindly trust author= ities. This, in my strong opinion, goes against the bitcoin ethos, and is a= n incredibly harmful way to push for your agenda. I'd very much recomme= nd you reassess=C2=A0the way you're going about what you're trying = to do. I fear you risk losing respect in the community by=C2=A0implying wit= hout any evidence that certain people are "taking advantage" of s= ome situation and attempting "to confuse".=C2=A0
=

= On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 12:33 PM Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev <bitcoi= n-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
If the next few weeks go how I fear they will it could get messy. If = you care about Bitcoin's consensus rules I'd request you pay attent= ion so you can make an informed view on what to run and what to support. Fo= r those of you who were around in 2015-2017 you'll know what to expect.= The right outcome endured in 2017 and I'm sure the right outcome will = endure here assuming people pay attention and listen to the individuals who= were trusted during that period. There are always a large number of motiva= ted parties who are incentivized to break nodes off from Bitcoin and may se= ek to take advantage of a contentious soft fork activation attempt.

Remember that if all the information is presen= ted to users in a clear way well ahead of time then they can make their own= mind up. I fear that things will be made as convoluted as possible in a wa= y intended to confuse and information will be withheld until the last minut= e. When in doubt it is generally better to rely on the status quo and tried= and trusted. In this case that would be Bitcoin Core. Alternative releases= such as those seeking to attempt to activate CTV or indeed those seeking t= o resist the activation of CTV really should only be considered if you are = informed on exactly what you are running.

If you are interested in the effort to resist the contentious soft fork = activation attempt of CTV please join ##ursf on Libera IRC.

Have a good weekend. Hopefully those behind this conte= ntious soft fork activation attempt will see sense and we can go back to mo= re productive things than resisting contentious soft forks.

--
Michael Folkson
Email:= michaelfolkson at protonmail.com
<= div style=3D"font-family:arial;font-size:14px">Keybase: michaelfolkson
PGP: 43ED C99= 9 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--000000000000e2389d05dd4b5ecc--