Delivery-date: Mon, 09 Dec 2024 12:16:10 -0800
Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of aj@erisian.com.au designates 172.104.61.193 as permitted sender) client-ip=172.104.61.193;
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 06:13:50 +1000
From: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
To: Jonas Nick <jonasd.nick@gmail.com>
Cc: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Covenants Support - Bitcoin Wiki
Message-ID: <Z1dPfjDwioa/DXzp@erisian.com.au>
References: <028c0197-5c45-4929-83a9-cfe7c87d17f4n@googlegroups.com>
 <941b8c22-0b2c-4734-af87-00f034d79e2e@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <941b8c22-0b2c-4734-af87-00f034d79e2e@gmail.com>
X-Spam_score: -0.0
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Original-Sender: aj@erisian.com.au
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com;       spf=pass
 (google.com: domain of aj@erisian.com.au designates 172.104.61.193 as
 permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=aj@erisian.com.au
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <bitcoindev.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 786775582512
List-Post: <https://groups.google.com/group/bitcoindev/post>, <mailto:bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <https://groups.google.com/support/>, <mailto:bitcoindev+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <https://groups.google.com/group/bitcoindev
List-Subscribe: <https://groups.google.com/group/bitcoindev/subscribe>, <mailto:bitcoindev+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:googlegroups-manage+786775582512+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>,
 <https://groups.google.com/group/bitcoindev/subscribe>
X-Spam-Score: -0.8 (/)

On Fri, Dec 06, 2024 at 09:45:31PM +0000, Jonas Nick wrote:
> I do not think the segwit support page serves as a suitable template for
> building rough consensus, in general and for covenants in particular.

The segwit page followed the example of the p2sh page [0]; I wasn't around
for that, but from the reporting it didn't sound like a particularly
clean result, with the result coming down to the proposers of BIP 16/17
respectively voting "No" and "Very weak" to the competition, and "No"
being worse than "Very weak". It's not a good example to follow.

[0] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2SH_Votes

The only polling question that's really necessary for establishing
that consensus exists is "have all my objections/concerns been
addressed? [yes/no]" (perhaps with a followup asking your top outstanding
concerns are). If the poll is widely open, and everyone's answer is
"yes"; that's consensus. (Even if some people's answers are "no"; it
might still be "rough" consensus, of course)

Personally, I find it hard to take any of this remotely seriously at this
point; the most recent example is reardencode's claim to have created
scripts for lightning-symmetry using either LNHANCE or CCV. This was
done via a tweet [1] and a gist [2], without any real exploration of
what the full transaction flow would look like. Did it have any chance of
working? Well, no, because it had an invented "3DROP" opcode instead of
"DROP 2DROP" or similar, just as if it were ChatGPT hallucinating what
a wallet script might look like. That would have failed as soon as it
had been run through any of the script test environments out there,
let alone through any actual node software, so it's clear that nobody
involved had done anything of the sort, even locally. If the proponents
aren't taking their proposals seriously, why on earth should anyone else?

[1] https://x.com/reardencode/status/1864749512113483993
[2] https://gist.github.com/reardencode/ae982ede45af12fe1ff7248fd6f1958c#file-ctv-csfs-vault-txt

Cheers,
aj

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/Z1dPfjDwioa/DXzp%40erisian.com.au.