Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55DF2C002D for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 04:31:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D66041BE2 for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 04:31:05 +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: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HSug0B6dk02M for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 04:31:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-pl1-x62e.google.com (mail-pl1-x62e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62e]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B03CE41B8E for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 04:31:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pl1-x62e.google.com with SMTP id f9so8870490plg.0 for ; Wed, 08 Jun 2022 21:31:01 -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=Bp7xERjxw5Ap7GQsZJEQHsOLJi2sX4qCDn/2/SB+YfI=; b=DpqNorbTq9CE9u2TcdZpt1wY4JGIRw7yRD5eQ06472AKEBkuQtUi2Ze6hsSE3WoUJF I+IMB2ORCvNNM3/2pSbN1H15kRoedZ/iRQ2Xll17hwrqYOHiNRi/yROyMczdKP6drcgm g58qQmil4g/eyWxmSXRcHCknEHeie23NFIZ8DaP8Yz/pudqHDZzDJlfeHI0z5B0cAH28 ztG/h/TkvztsEV/0fOLlnW++tnkgF+0V6/n6voSeWVzxxmpY3QqVWbSruLZLzIqmf/EY I3IvJIqTeDdHfQMS9wGwkYS0hvJRwHx9Y8VwPb0iN6GqR33z0mKa5tYUXBSMx2EdJq/L p8dw== 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=Bp7xERjxw5Ap7GQsZJEQHsOLJi2sX4qCDn/2/SB+YfI=; b=tcC6br/x3nk4ywG/v4iC6hls58NkGoxRfpKOJl2XgtRDfNjeBBCa1CiKz+NitOFOm8 943S2L/EGkZhyeStZjBW+beyiNBzHwDg7nnuV0hDjYv3GYxGgIGCkQdbiqYSBuG38yXv zT5hx9HEjOgyudynHj/JpZswgjlXgRY52vX3IcYL0S4YAKdGdvbKyuU0t63P4UA/ARrN fKyPz0mZdcvOG5OaxXdjTdYn0/UzEFKH3M1JGdOWsex1sqLLt5otPiPOGIbLmJyt2l5C nMYVf2foOrUunEZliAjMOmwUM4lXAUV6tzvn4jVhQnDJ87fs37uksF1sPGPSIN75ouwZ ZcaQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530N19f1AWeltlEZ5blzozaebqvUiz+Gz4U0OHIePzYQisz+rRKA mEMfrTHenZga0gzLn41cVMmDdVPjaSKqqAdgEddRc8Rn X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzixusG8jkq51Xvtxn/wrKXbZKg3QcTh+F2Bhy96aqCw/JRDBxmCvQhQ999+6V1/+m0jj8PaFwhilG1qE4qOBQ= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:ebc8:b0:15f:417c:288b with SMTP id p8-20020a170902ebc800b0015f417c288bmr37832220plg.14.1654749060933; Wed, 08 Jun 2022 21:31:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Billy Tetrud Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2022 23:30:45 -0500 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f82e9f05e0fc494d" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 09 Jun 2022 09:52:33 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable 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: Thu, 09 Jun 2022 04:31:05 -0000 --000000000000f82e9f05e0fc494d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable @jorge > Who do you mean by "the non technical folks"? I mean people that don't have software engineering skills. This is the twittersphere, reddit, most podcasters, etc etc. This is the vast majority of the bitcoin community, and the vast majority of.. everyone. > You don't include alicexbt or yourself as a "technical folk", do you? I have no idea what alicexbt's skillset is. I do include myself. I have a degree in software engineering. I work as a programmer in the bitcoin space. I have written papers on technical aspects of bitcoin. Why would you assume that I'm not technical as someone who participates in the bitcoin developers mailing list? Perhaps its projection? On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 3:31 PM Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Who do you mean by "the non technical folks"? > You don't include alicexbt or yourself as a "technical folk", do you? > > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 8:38 AM Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> Wholeheartedly agree with you alicexbt. There are no technical issues >> that have been shown that I'm aware of. Once the non-technical folks hav= e >> time to discuss it and realize that, I'm hopeful things will move forwar= d. >> Perhaps we can learn from this and figure out how to better catch the >> attention of the larger bitcoin community for important changes without >> alarming them. >> >> On Sun, Jun 5, 2022 at 2:48 AM alicexbt via bitcoin-dev < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi Jorge, >>> >>> >>> Misinformation is false or inaccurate information, especially that whic= h >>> is deliberately intended to deceive. A combination of 'misleading' and >>> 'information'. Here are a few examples and I am sure I missed a lot of >>> others but its difficult for me to keep a track of everything: >>> >>> >>> 1) Sapio is open source and everything mentioned in tweet is false: >>> https://web.archive.org/web/20220503050140/https://twitter.com/coinable= S/status/1521354192434073602 >>> >>> 2) Personal attacks on author of BIP 119 with false information: >>> https://nitter.net/s3cp256k1/status/1521238634111770624 >>> >>> 3) Andreas Antonopoulos shared false things about CTV and explained by >>> Ryan in this email: >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-May/020414= .html >>> >>> 4) Misleading things shared in these emails by Michael Folkson: >>> >>> >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-January/01= 9728.html >>> >>> >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/0202= 35.html >>> >>> >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/0202= 86.html >>> >>> >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/0203= 43.html >>> >>> >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/0203= 86.html >>> >>> 5) Peter Todd and Zac shared misleading things about BIP 119, bitcoin >>> and L2. I replied in this email: >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/0203= 22.html >>> >>> 6) Social media influencers like Peter McCormack tweeted they don't >>> understand BIP 119 but its an attack (this was even retweeted by develo= pers >>> like Peter Todd): >>> https://nitter.net/PeterMcCormack/status/1521253840963653632 >>> >>> 7) Some misconceptions about BIP 119 cleared by Bitcoin Magazine: >>> https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/what-is-bip-119-bitcoin-controver= sy-explained >>> >>> 8) There were lies and misinformation about BIP 119 on social media >>> according to this Bitcoin Magazine article: >>> https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/analyzing-bip119-and-the-controve= rsy-surrounding-it >>> >>> 9) John Carvalho tweeting false things: >>> >>> https://nitter.net/BitcoinErrorLog/status/1468599535538745359 >>> >>> https://nitter.net/BitcoinErrorLog/status/1522652884218822658 >>> >>> https://nitter.net/BitcoinErrorLog/status/1442554615967354880 >>> >>> https://nitter.net/search?q=3DMIT%20(from%3ABitcoinErrorLog) >>> >>> 10) Greg Maxwell responding to misinformation related to BIP 119 but >>> adding false things in the comments: >>> https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/uim560/bip_119/i7dhfpb/ >>> >>> >>> I am not surprised by your email but it would be better if the people >>> who are interested in reviewing BIP 119 could raise the bar and not sha= re >>> misleading information. >>> >>> >>> /dev/fd0 >>> >>> >>> Sent with Proton Mail secure email. >>> ------- Original Message ------- >>> On Sunday, June 5th, 2022 at 12:12 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> > "Some people say CTV is contentious, but they're spreading >>> misinformation"? Really? Seriously?Come on, guys, we can do better than >>> nina jankovich and the "fact checkers". >>> > Please, rise the bar. >>> > On Fri, Jun 3, 2022, 19:44 alicexbt via bitcoin-dev < >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >>> > >>> > > Note: This email is an opinion and not an attack on bitcoin >>> > > >>> > > Covenants on bitcoin will eventually be implemented with a soft >>> fork. CTV is the easiest and best possible way OP_TX looks good as well= . >>> Apart from the technical merits, covenants will improve a few other thi= ngs: >>> > > >>> > > - Developers can build interesting projects with real demand in >>> market. >>> > > - Students learn Sapio and not just solidity. >>> > > - Better tooling could be available for application developers. >>> > > - Maybe we see bitcoin developer hackathons in different countries. >>> > > - Demand for block space might increase, it wont be just exchanges >>> and coinjoin. >>> > > - Funding of bitcoin developers and projects might improve. Wont >>> need to convince a few people for grants. >>> > > >>> > > **Why covenants are not contentious?** >>> > > >>> > > Some people may write paragraphs about CTV being contentious, sprea= d >>> misinformation and do all types of drama, politics etc. on social media= but >>> there are zero technical NACKs for CTV. We have discussed other covenan= t >>> proposals in detail on mailing list and IRC meetings with an open minde= d >>> approach. >>> > > >>> > > All the developers that participated in the discussion are either >>> okay with CTV or OP_TX or covenants in general. >>> > > >>> > > **How and when should covenants be implemented in Bitcoin?** >>> > > >>> > > I don't think we should wait for years anticipating a proposal that >>> everyone will agree on or argue for years to pretend changes are hard i= n >>> Bitcoin. We should improve the review process for soft fork BIPs and sh= are >>> honest opinions with agreement, disagreement on technical merits. >>> > > >>> > > I prefer BIP 8 or improved BIP 8 for soft fork but I won't mind >>> anything else being used if that improves Bitcoin. Covenants implemente= d in >>> Bitcoin before the next cycle would provide opportunity for developers = to >>> build interesting things during the bear market. Ossification supporter= s >>> also believe there is some window that will close soon, maybe doing cha= nges >>> considering each case individually will be a better approach. CTV is no= t a >>> rushed soft fork, less people followed the research and it was not >>> mentioned on social media repeatedly by the respected developers like o= ther >>> soft forks. >>> > > >>> > > /dev/fd0 >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > Sent with Proton Mail secure email. >>> > > _______________________________________________ >>> > > bitcoin-dev mailing list >>> > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>> > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>> _______________________________________________ >>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --000000000000f82e9f05e0fc494d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
@jorge

> Who do you mean by= "the non technical folks"?

I mean p= eople that don't have software engineering skills. This is the twitters= phere, reddit, most podcasters, etc etc. This is the vast majority of the b= itcoin community, and the vast majority=C2=A0of.. everyone.=C2=A0

> You don't include alicexbt or yourself as a "= technical folk", do you?

I have no idea what alicexbt's skillset is.=20 I do include myself. I have a degree in software engineering. I work as a p= rogrammer in the bitcoin space. I have written=C2=A0papers on technical=C2= =A0aspects of bitcoin. Why would you assume that I'm not technical as s= omeone who participates in the bitcoin developers=C2=A0mailing=C2=A0list? P= erhaps its projection?=C2=A0

On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 3:31 PM Jorge Tim= =C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> w= rote:
Who do you mean by "the non technical folks"?
You don't include alicexbt or yourself as a "technical fo= lk", do you?


=
On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 8:38 AM Billy = Tetrud via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wr= ote:
Wholeheartedly agree with you alicexbt. There are no technical issues= that have been shown that I'm aware of. Once the non-technical folks h= ave time to discuss it and realize that, I'm hopeful things will move f= orward. Perhaps we can learn from this and figure out how to better catch t= he attention of the larger bitcoin community=C2=A0 for important=C2=A0chang= es without alarming them.=C2=A0

On Sun, Jun 5, 2022 at 2:48 AM alicexbt via = bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Hi Jorge,


Misinformation is false or inaccurate information, especially that which is= deliberately intended to deceive. A combination of 'misleading' an= d 'information'. Here are a few examples and I am sure I missed a l= ot of others but its difficult for me to keep a track of everything:


1) Sapio is open source and everything mentioned in tweet is false: https://= web.archive.org/web/20220503050140/https://twitter.com/coinableS/status/152= 1354192434073602

2) Personal attacks on author of BIP 119 with false information: https://nitter.net/s3cp256k1/status/1521238634111770624=

3) Andreas Antonopoulos shared false things about CTV and explained by Ryan= in this email: https://= lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-May/020414.html
4) Misleading things shared in these emails by Michael Folkson:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 https:= //lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-January/019728.html<= /a>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://= lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020235.html<= br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://= lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020286.html<= br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://= lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020343.html<= br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://= lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020386.html<= br>
5) Peter Todd and Zac shared misleading things about BIP 119, bitcoin and L= 2. I replied in this email: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/02= 0322.html

6) Social media influencers like Peter McCormack tweeted they don't und= erstand BIP 119 but its an attack (this was even retweeted by developers li= ke Peter Todd): https://nitter.net/Peter= McCormack/status/1521253840963653632

7) Some misconceptions about BIP 119 cleared by Bitcoin Magazine: https://bitcoinmagazine.= com/technical/what-is-bip-119-bitcoin-controversy-explained

8) There were lies and misinformation about BIP 119 on social media accordi= ng to this Bitcoin Magazine article: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/analyzing-b= ip119-and-the-controversy-surrounding-it

9) John Carvalho tweeting false things:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://nitter.net/Bitcoi= nErrorLog/status/1468599535538745359

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://nitter.net/Bitcoi= nErrorLog/status/1522652884218822658

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://nitter.net/Bitcoi= nErrorLog/status/1442554615967354880

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://nitter.net/search?= q=3DMIT%20(from%3ABitcoinErrorLog)

10) Greg Maxwell responding to misinformation related to BIP 119 but adding= false things in the comments: http= s://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/uim560/bip_119/i7dhfpb/


I am not surprised by your email but it would be better if the people who a= re interested in reviewing BIP 119 could raise the bar and not share mislea= ding information.


/dev/fd0


Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
------- Original Message -------
On Sunday, June 5th, 2022 at 12:12 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote:


> "Some people say CTV is contentious, but they're spreading mi= sinformation"? Really? Seriously?Come on, guys, we can do better than = nina jankovich and the "fact checkers".
> Please, rise the bar.
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2022, 19:44 alicexbt via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@li= sts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> > Note: This email is an opinion and not an attack on bitcoin
> >
> > Covenants on bitcoin will eventually be implemented with a soft f= ork. CTV is the easiest and best possible way OP_TX looks good as well. Apa= rt from the technical merits, covenants will improve a few other things: > >
> > - Developers can build interesting projects with real demand in m= arket.
> > - Students learn Sapio and not just solidity.
> > - Better tooling could be available for application developers. > > - Maybe we see bitcoin developer hackathons in different countrie= s.
> > - Demand for block space might increase, it wont be just exchange= s and coinjoin.
> > - Funding of bitcoin developers and projects might improve. Wont = need to convince a few people for grants.
> >
> > **Why covenants are not contentious?**
> >
> > Some people may write paragraphs about CTV being contentious, spr= ead misinformation and do all types of drama, politics etc. on social media= but there are zero technical NACKs for CTV. We have discussed other covena= nt proposals in detail on mailing list and IRC meetings with an open minded= approach.
> >
> > All the developers that participated in the discussion are either= okay with CTV or OP_TX or covenants in general.
> >
> > **How and when should covenants be implemented in Bitcoin?**
> >
> > I don't think we should wait for years anticipating a proposa= l that everyone will agree on or argue for years to pretend changes are har= d in Bitcoin. We should improve the review process for soft fork BIPs and s= hare honest opinions with agreement, disagreement on technical merits.
> >
> > I prefer BIP 8 or improved BIP 8 for soft fork but I won't mi= nd anything else being used if that improves Bitcoin. Covenants implemented= in Bitcoin before the next cycle would provide opportunity for developers = to build interesting things during the bear market. Ossification supporters= also believe there is some window that will close soon, maybe doing change= s considering each case individually will be a better approach. CTV is not = a rushed soft fork, less people followed the research and it was not mentio= ned on social media repeatedly by the respected developers like other soft = forks.
> >
> > /dev/fd0
> >
> >
> > Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundatio= n.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--000000000000f82e9f05e0fc494d--