Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95DD4C002D for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 05:48:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 806CF60E5E for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 05:48:36 +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: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e6wfxI4WIdAJ for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 05:48:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-lj1-x22a.google.com (mail-lj1-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22a]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2283F60E16 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 05:48:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lj1-x22a.google.com with SMTP id 16so5394026lju.13 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 22:48:33 -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=9Xe0QtDBAwYoLUVD1AmLAmmnSYVJwIOlenySVFL4IG0=; b=IWa2oYT12aee4KdfFWyHM6JF8VyUy1ZjOdZB2eQfrVUGcLabWk0bJSSqVVlnmjUOou YakNIMZ8laZkTxXPKYZ4Zh8P/+F8+fxbv6Gi9GHc0ERl/hts+g4D2SFLQ64yUnig4nyJ rZY6fIhPgAe05F7/BGmchFK4ONBW/xWj0dI6NyzzPoEtJuh+P1k7co8LT4tUzGZ8sVVg QYq5MeDa/OSBAYx5SmdHsOar7eKByNHtRljpjc5S1qfEA/w0LIxxf1rmqMM+Ua7fCs16 17iy88Fkthguv29gCmu7ghLl1jZQTEL8yELyXd06VQb6QkZ60dT0bZvlxjuiWyQGXnc+ EiZw== 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=9Xe0QtDBAwYoLUVD1AmLAmmnSYVJwIOlenySVFL4IG0=; b=Z64Xyq5Jn2Vh77qe4sfN3ARyBw5ql9ZldccM1bzu8gxxIa0doqij5MuOEv5joufdYi Q/IVyvHtnpXZyUxcJ/wafqLLY91QCgR7/JPSEk/gY3PTB6o4+l8C2XT2gdC/9ua7xGFo N5HHN3RGuXVQxXKvb5z/8qa7h9Ta2+wCnOtCNn65hq6Kh1t/P+EnmkPl5iV+gfYKQCJo lLLgjIBWu4Dd1OMQTIOPcfuTN/39/I94uv3udi8tK/aPV0/bIA9Yp6n3zeto5RVwaSTh TFeuln8FLXz3ZI/uzguKnbi+FCqE0s0vrDJ71QMBRDKk27anwXDmlIDoWYgdYAJ7iHj6 Tw6A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5326+eapQVm2IcnPryEfW/Jm7WfGWqDcqQtXgCfAlXNGxboMVf5/ XrnYC0c1lgHvHM5A6iIqoNeB8YWqNsf9nHOFsyXF1g6m X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwDP9zVB1xtgOTuEfWWpl8A4pl4RJ4Aq1PQLgL/1SfRDvCt7tUNYAi7Ruv+q4bOIj93oZK+LO/NXy8DIAvyZPk= X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:12c1:b0:249:7e8c:d5fc with SMTP id 1-20020a05651c12c100b002497e8cd5fcmr13095814lje.33.1650952111650; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 22:48:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <9xz3fyWghx-hWNovENgiaU_FvTKLvGAWq9ooCoeGMsaXT1UV6k9zV9fzjVXj346GNqOPV0UQvlE4YRvOpbnkwk5xUiugraaNK4V2iALskGo=@protonmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Jeremy Rubin Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 22:48:20 -0700 Message-ID: To: Michael Folkson , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000027fe0805dd883e07" 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: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 05:48:36 -0000 --00000000000027fe0805dd883e07 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" The reason there was not a mailing list post is because that's not a committed plan, it was offered up for discussion to a public working group for feedback as a potential plan. You've inaccurately informed the list on something no one has communicated committed intent for. This was an alternative discussed in the telegram messaging app but did not seem to strike the correct balance so was not furthered. I was hoping to be able to share something back to this list sooner rather than later, but I have not been able to get, among those interested to discuss in that venue, coherence on a best next step. I communicated inasmuch on the bird app https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin/status/1518347793903017984 https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin/status/1518477022439247872, but do not have a clear next step and am pouring over all the fantastic feedback I received so far. Further, you're representing the state of affairs as if there's a great need to scramble to generate software for this, whereas there already are scripts to support a URSF that work with the source code I pointed to from my blog. This approach is a decent one, even though it requires two things, because it is simple. I think it's important that people keep this in mind because that is not a joke, the intention was that the correct set of check and balance tools were made available. I'd be eager to learn what, specifically, you think the advantages are of a separate binary release rather than a binary + script that can handle both cases? I'm asking sincerely because I would make the modifications to the release I prepared to support that as well, if they do not entail substantial technical risk. Personally, were I aligned with your preferences, I'd be testing the forkd script and making sure it is easy to use as the simplest and most effective way to achieve your ends. regards, Jeremy -- @JeremyRubin On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 3:44 PM Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > The latest I'm hearing (this mailing list appears to be being bypassed in > favor of personal blogs and messaging apps) is that Speedy Trial miner > signaling for the contentious CTV soft fork is no longer going to start on > May 5th (as previously communicated [1]) and may instead now start around > August 1st 2022. > > Hence for now the drama seems to have been averted. I am deeply skeptical > that in the next 3 months this soft fork activation attempt will obtain > community consensus and will no longer be contentious (although I guess > theoretically it is possible). As a result I suspect we'll be in the exact > same situation with a URSF effort required 2-3 months down the line. > > If we are I'll try to keep the mailing list informed. It is important > there is transparency and ample time to research and prepare before making > decisions on what software to run. Obviously I have no control over what > others choose to do. Please don't be rushed into running things you don't > understand the implications of and please only signal for a soft fork if > you are convinced it has community consensus (what should precede signaling > as it did for Taproot) and you are ready to activate a soft fork. > > [1]: https://rubin.io/bitcoin/2022/04/17/next-steps-bip119/ > > -- > Michael Folkson > Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com > Keybase: michaelfolkson > PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3 > > ------- Original Message ------- > On Saturday, April 23rd, 2022 at 11:03 AM, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > As I said in my post: > > "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." > > Ideally everyone would come to an informed view independently. > Unfortunately many people don't have the time to follow Bitcoin drama 24/7 > and hence struggle to separate noise from signal. In this case simple > heuristics are better than nothing. One heuristic is to listen to those in > the past who showed good judgment and didn't seek to misinform. Of course > it is an imperfect heuristic. Ideally the community would be given > sufficient time to come to an informed view independently on what software > to run and not be rushed into making decisions. But it appears they are not > being afforded that luxury. > > > I fear you risk losing respect in the community > > I appreciate your concern. > > -- > Michael Folkson > Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com > Keybase: michaelfolkson > PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3 > > ------- Original Message ------- > On Saturday, April 23rd, 2022 at 6:10 AM, Billy Tetrud < > billy.tetrud@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --00000000000027fe0805dd883e07 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The reason there was n= ot a mailing list post is because that's not a committed plan,=C2=A0it= =C2=A0was offered up for discussion to a public working group for feedback = as a potential plan. You've inaccurately informed the list on something= no one has communicated committed intent for. This was an alternative disc= ussed in the telegram messaging app but did not seem to strike the correct = balance so was not furthered.

=
I was hoping to be able to share = something back to this list sooner rather than later, but I have not been a= ble to get, among those interested to discuss in that venue, coherence on a= best next step. I communicated inasmuch on the bird app=C2=A0https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin/status/1518347793903017984=C2=A0https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin/status/1518477022439247872, but= do not have a clear next step and am pouring over all the fantastic feedba= ck I received=C2=A0so far.

Further, you're representing the= =C2=A0state of affairs as if there's a great need to scramble to genera= te software for this, whereas there already are scripts to support a URSF t= hat work with the source code I pointed to from my blog. This approach is a= decent one, even though it requires two things, because it is simple. I th= ink it's important that people keep this in mind because that is not a = joke, the intention was that the correct set of check and balance tools wer= e made available. I'd be eager to learn what, specifically, you think t= he advantages are of a separate binary release rather than a binary=C2=A0+ = script that can handle both cases? I'm asking sincerely because I would= make the modifications to the release I prepared to support that as well, = if they do not entail substantial technical risk. Personally, were I aligne= d with your preferences, I'd be testing the forkd=C2=A0script and makin= g sure it is easy to use as the simplest and most effective way to achieve = your ends.

regards,
Jeremy

<= div>

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 3:44 PM Michael Folks= on via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:=
= The latest I'm hearing (this mailing list appears to be being bypassed = in favor of personal blogs and messaging apps) is that Speedy Trial miner s= ignaling for the contentious CTV soft fork is no longer going to start on M= ay 5th (as previously communicated [1]) and may instead now start around Au= gust 1st 2022.

Hence for now the drama = seems to have been averted. I am deeply skeptical that in the next 3 months= this soft fork activation attempt will obtain community consensus and will= no longer be contentious (although I guess theoretically it is possible). = As a result I suspect we'll be in the exact same situation with a URSF = effort required 2-3 months down the line.=C2=A0

If we are I'll try to keep the mailing list informed. It is im= portant there is transparency and ample time to research and prepare before= making decisions on what software to run. Obviously I have no control over= what others choose to do. Please don't be rushed into running things y= ou don't understand the implications of and please only signal for a so= ft fork if you are convinced it has community consensus (what should preced= e signaling as it did for Taproot) and you are ready to activate a soft for= k.


--
Michael Folkson
Email:= michaelfolkson at protonmail.com <= br>
Keybase: michaelfolkson
PGP= : 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3

------- Original Message -------
On Saturday, April 23rd, 2022 at 11:03 AM, Michael Folkson via bitc= oin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

As I said in my= post:

"If you care about Bitcoin's consensus rules I'd request you pa= y attention so you can make an informed view on what to run and what to sup= port."

Ideally everyone would com= e to an informed view independently. Unfortunately many people don't ha= ve the time to follow Bitcoin drama 24/7 and hence struggle to separate noi= se from signal. In this case simple heuristics are better than nothing. One= heuristic is to listen to those in the past who showed good judgment and d= idn't seek to misinform. Of course it is an imperfect heuristic. Ideall= y the community would be given sufficient time to come to an informed view = independently on what software to run and not be rushed into making decisio= ns. But it appears they are not being afforded that luxury.

>=C2=A0=C2=A0= I fear you risk losing respect in the community
<= div style=3D"font-family:arial;font-size:14px">
I appreciate your concern.

--
Michael Folkson
Email:= michaelfolkson at protonmail.com <= br>
Keybase: michaelfolkson
PGP= : 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3

------- Original Message -------
On Saturday, April 23rd, 2022 at 6:10 AM, Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.com= > wrote:

> assuming people pay atten= tion 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.. arou= nd in 2015-2017" you're asking people to blindly trust authorities= . This, in my strong opinion, goes against the bitcoin ethos, and is an inc= redibly harmful way to push for your agenda. I'd very much recommend yo= u reassess the way you're going about what you're trying to do. I f= ear you risk losing respect in the community by implying without any eviden= ce that certain people are "taking advantage" of some situation a= nd attempting "to confuse".

On Fri, Apr 22, 2022= at 12:33 PM Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
<= blockquote style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-l= eft-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class= =3D"gmail_quote">
If the nex= t few weeks go how I fear they will it could get messy. If you care about B= itcoin's consensus rules I'd request you pay attention so you can m= ake an informed view on what to run and what to support. For those of you w= ho were around in 2015-2017 you'll know what to expect. The right outco= me endured in 2017 and I'm sure the right outcome will endure here assu= ming people pay attention and listen to the individuals who were trusted du= ring 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 advan= tage 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 co= nfuse 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 s= eeking to attempt to activate CTV or indeed those seeking to resist the act= ivation of CTV really should only be considered if you are informed on exac= tly what you are running.

If you are in= terested in the effort to resist the contentious soft fork activation attem= pt 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 th= ings than resisting contentious soft forks.

--
Michael Folkson
Email:= michaelfolkson at protonmail.com <= br>
Keybase: michaelfolkson
PGP= : 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<= /a>
https://lists.linuxf= oundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--00000000000027fe0805dd883e07--