Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37279C002D for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 11:39:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F3CD83211 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 11:39:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=jtimon-cc.20210112.gappssmtp.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 WYLFIDYq2nPM for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 11:39:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-yb1-xb32.google.com (mail-yb1-xb32.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b32]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6682E8321B for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 11:39:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yb1-xb32.google.com with SMTP id f38so32430708ybi.3 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 04:39:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jtimon-cc.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=kjr+YS9zKogznmZzHnhOSj3GEirPIN9FlU/Ccm1X1ng=; b=21046Id5OxbNULD6xtCW79b/b3NxOFfxvfnJ3sXDt1kEqQET0KSgASXn2euKxvzjtW l/RKKZvq9WTYY9rd4t9xmRYe1T4cIBIeyr+Opfdil+IKjGjHiW/CkKPWLrdh4vH+qc1J OIhlMaQrJeJG3mUbdbIXK0Wy44rWr+4xOhZRVxoSsJ83lbBuiAOSceXHH4pQanr8p92t 4tMJyDM0W73UoZ/Y0DviL/KnwDqbGWqGy8wGluQRu+nHWblwGkqsZHM1xw0cMTVPut+a PluIUgvXyCy2GUO2N+GqNY2UHLja4Lz0HcMZuyKxdlGSV7vOobTGcrTbo3p5736A98/u D1mg== 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=kjr+YS9zKogznmZzHnhOSj3GEirPIN9FlU/Ccm1X1ng=; b=GsgP6CdBvh6JNzWR2mDaGSr3nxLFReniWwzn6d6GfpoKcjFyeM0Uw4Dzt0Yhz8GiSI 9LVKSWTylKCP6rQ8saO0BowCnfCEU5Lw4Yg2QQJHOD/YmgvaTpVkDKVuMB2g7mEBktYV DO6vh/Mjah1UETcvU1VUwVepULvrvxMLXA3CiJX8+X8KU1L3TFsXl0MOM7w/hhPvbeAn VGf0Gv7jMs7uk437amHu5CctoxbjLVIX0uAskpHzeZ5MVdboNA4LP6Jad2IxaHXzw/cg j7RKxHgzr0huRilNvnEKYp71QVsHHAG01A37W0g6CaFKIhrI7unHhy+Ija+9Fbngh/09 TRAQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533bj56e9AO6KfejHuOehGT9ermgcQq2Qzl8mJuEBmbx2yoAhztO HeIAOFYd2J03BiPbqdsOGQbiYmPgY/OCacyXaKqfplGzyYOSkw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyJWixwyT/xMJgNjVW428MkCngPumSa6ju9yJzLMvk0wyes9TMOSj0VWJiyOf8KklSAJ7DFEXT9+/hPlibd5mU= X-Received: by 2002:a5b:dc5:0:b0:624:f16d:7069 with SMTP id t5-20020a5b0dc5000000b00624f16d7069mr20399096ybr.295.1650973144198; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 04:39:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <9xz3fyWghx-hWNovENgiaU_FvTKLvGAWq9ooCoeGMsaXT1UV6k9zV9fzjVXj346GNqOPV0UQvlE4YRvOpbnkwk5xUiugraaNK4V2iALskGo=@protonmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 12:40:19 +0100 Message-ID: To: Michael Folkson , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cb46d605dd8d231a" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 11:40:05 +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: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 11:39:07 -0000 --000000000000cb46d605dd8d231a Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" "The only 3 nacks"...I would not call that an accurate "collection of feedback". Feedback is always more positive when you laregely chose to ignore any negative feedback, isn't it? "Largely, the formal critiques of CTV (the 3 NACKs) are based on topics of whether or not to swing the racquet, not if we should be at the ball. " I would comment on this point, but I'm not sure I'm "technical enough". I have to admit: I've never played tennis. Besides, I'm pretty sure any feedback I give would be ignored. Following the tennis analogy, one could think Jeremy is trying to win this match the way Nadal won Djokovich in Australia in 2021 (ie by doing everything in his hand to make sure his opponent wasn't even allowed to play, ie not by playing fair nor by playing better than the opppnent). "Activation parameters like in taproot". If this was a tennis match, then I would have some sort of ability to slow time down or something, because I've been seeing this ball slowly coming since taproot's activation parameters were discussed. It feels a little bit "deja vu" too. Was ever a controversial hardfork attempted "just with the same activation mechanism as the last softfork"? I should look for the exact words, I guess. On Mon, Apr 25, 2022, 23:45 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 > --000000000000cb46d605dd8d231a Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
"The only 3 nacks"...I would not call that an a= ccurate "collection of feedback". Feedback is always more positiv= e when you laregely chose to ignore any negative feedback, isn't it?
"Largely, the formal critiques of= CTV (the 3 NACKs) are based on topics of whether or not to swing the racqu= et, not if we should be at the ball. "
<= span style=3D"background-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(81,81,81);font-fa= mily:"pt sans",helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px">
I would comment on this point, but I'm not sure I= 'm "technical enough". I have to admit: I've never played= tennis.
Besides, I'm pretty sure any feedback I give w= ould be ignored.=C2=A0
Following the tennis analogy,= one could think Jeremy is trying to win this match the way Nadal won Djoko= vich in Australia in 2021 (ie by doing everything in his hand to make sure = his opponent wasn't even allowed to play, ie not by playing fair nor by= playing better than the opppnent).
"Activation parameters like in taproot"= .
If this was a tennis match, then I would have some= sort of ability to slow time down or something, because I've been seei= ng this ball slowly coming since taproot's activation parameters were d= iscussed.

It feels a little bit "deja vu" too. Was ever a controversial= hardfork attempted "just with the same activation mechanism as the la= st softfork"?
I should look for the exact words= , I guess.


On Mon, Apr 25, 2022, 23:= 45 Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
The latest I'm hearing (this mailing list appears to be bei= ng bypassed in favor of personal blogs and messaging apps) is that Speedy T= rial miner signaling for the contentious CTV soft fork is no longer going t= o start on May 5th (as previously communicated [1]) and may instead now sta= rt around August 1st 2022.

Hence for no= w the drama seems to have been averted. I am deeply skeptical that in the n= ext 3 months this soft fork activation attempt will obtain community consen= sus 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 inform= ed. It is important there is transparency and ample time to research and pr= epare 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 runn= ing things you don't understand the implications of and please only sig= nal for a soft fork if you are convinced it has community consensus (what s= hould precede signaling as it did for Taproot) and you are ready to activat= e a soft fork.


--
Michael FolksonEmail: michaelfolkson at pro= tonmail.com
Keybase: michaelfolkson
PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 9= 2D6 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 requ= est you pay attention so you can make an informed view on what to run and w= hat to support."

Ideally everyone would come to an informed view independently. Unfortun= ately 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 heuristic= s 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 tim= e 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 afforde= d that luxury.
=
>= ;=C2=A0=C2=A0I fear y= ou risk losing respect in the community

I appreciate your concern.

--
Michael FolksonEmail: michaelfolkson at pro= tonmail.com
Keybase: michaelfolkson
PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 9= 2D6 0159 214C FEE3

------- Original Message -------
On Saturday, April 23rd, 2022 at 6:10 AM, Billy Tetrud <bil= ly.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:<= br>
If the next few weeks go how I fear they wi= ll it could get messy. If you care about Bitcoin's consensus rules I= 9;d request you pay attention so you can make an informed view on what to r= un and what to support. For those of you who were around in 2015-2017 you&#= 39;ll know what to expect. The right outcome endured in 2017 and I'm su= re the right outcome will endure here assuming people pay attention and lis= ten to the individuals who were trusted during that period. There are alway= s a large number of motivated parties who are incentivized to break nodes o= ff from Bitcoin and may seek to take advantage of a contentious soft fork a= ctivation attempt.
Remember that if all= the information is presented to users in a clear way well ahead of time th= en they can make their own mind up. I fear that things will be made as conv= oluted as possible in a way intended to confuse and information will be wit= hheld until the last minute. When in doubt it is generally better to rely o= n 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 L= ibera IRC.

<= div style=3D"font-family:arial;font-size:14px">Have a good weekend. Hopeful= ly those behind this contentious soft fork activation attempt will see sens= e and we can go back to more productive things than resisting contentious s= oft forks.

--
Michael Folkson
Email:= michaelfolkson at protonmail.com<= span style=3D"color:rgb(38,42,51);font-style:normal;font-weight:400;letter-= spacing:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:pre-wrap;wor= d-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);float:none;display:inline">=
Keybase: michaelfolk= son
PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3=
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoun= dation.org
https://l= ists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundati= on.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--000000000000cb46d605dd8d231a--