Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59051C002C for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:16:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47F1983F4F for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:16:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.848 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 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_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, 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 BrhTc12zvl7Y for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:16:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-yw1-x1129.google.com (mail-yw1-x1129.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1129]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91F178343B for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:16:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw1-x1129.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-2f19fdba41fso53613817b3.3 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 07:16:36 -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 :cc; bh=qMyYRrtBwAnJ33siXqHpFTTmkLmjUpyKjgMl0DN0pP8=; b=JhtvkqS4EXLE7XMXIuAAcCE/m4AJ7o7C0qP+pDe7SZe8ueci1eZvxVJchN10plb48Q o26cJRMiAZHiR+iSLTkvukvQYdkwb0qKSLIArqiaVgcGWFrCT3GGYHuyi4/y37ZCMHZR I8AI1x6qS4YImy80e44n8/ibnKMWO6FJYvRG+Ni2Uj/noj0loxv7IDrE+ZH1NS0+g2fs 9iUF7gGhPPUKc1cW+ewawNcm2tnmxY9R9eGhZV2a9B0vTLM6QulKIjEhGGp7U39g5QnQ YJjKepcsWDo/6RgDYR+c8/qQFQvj1ZKmhoYAr29UXS/TkS24e0t0vEvSOwjt/gbrhrUH 4S7A== 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:cc; bh=qMyYRrtBwAnJ33siXqHpFTTmkLmjUpyKjgMl0DN0pP8=; b=ZfHgbYnkKBoQ2NtlF82OS3KQYFJ/tTULoZr9goMV8N45ziWwtuQNriWv7nBU7ccpVp CqKLBaSdpxejq5+daJlqNILjA0jnv3HnW6PJS1BFQ4Hat+ecnDdcY6d4kI0twQJUMlWp 2TYxDwGr7qM0sNCaInfluaK1UgioNjCtB2kGAnkRSYp7Pb14QJqe/EIewmiUHBz5NE0k s4EsE4KqMEBPP6vDIX41S/9uqo9lD4dHvU33PrinfPXB+h+MBOS2eKJ52ye6ljctNaXU Nn2dp1bAf66OxAH0YwM5Y/s0HJMAgbZF7ZIAYzz4F2oZu+QLKDRJYCXFYSnRxyqE27j1 p4Yw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533nfW4LbWYF8MEFuANKMGRfLt/bpenlPiVQXwUNWWPvzeigGYuK k3JULZ+Oial0FZ2LI8ub1imJwnQBGCJV+e9yO8TfNMRa X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyj8YXeNxRQ3WH+fYkhHB20InzVktPiKY6HJhUkyMms/VmV6qZ51W3nBxWKThw/tu1e5z6/oISAQ9kGyn7evIg= X-Received: by 2002:a81:4887:0:b0:2ec:2d47:71e4 with SMTP id v129-20020a814887000000b002ec2d4771e4mr24854158ywa.466.1650550595430; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 07:16:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <_7t2rDK--RA323BHOtnqyvAne1ghGx3OW-8GczHqbCGdgEnQVKg0eY8CHaDXlfEMuNtj1Y2OBedvrNZfNmPRfOzQ5irBb0IEtxFY_QKpTTY=@protonmail.com> In-Reply-To: <_7t2rDK--RA323BHOtnqyvAne1ghGx3OW-8GczHqbCGdgEnQVKg0eY8CHaDXlfEMuNtj1Y2OBedvrNZfNmPRfOzQ5irBb0IEtxFY_QKpTTY=@protonmail.com> From: Greg Sanders Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 10:16:24 -0400 Message-ID: To: alicexbt , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ecae5c05dd2ac12d" Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] 7 Theses on a next step for BIP-119 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, 21 Apr 2022 14:16:38 -0000 --000000000000ecae5c05dd2ac12d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Ironically assumptions of bad faith are going to kill any proposal, resulting in the status quo. Let's keep the assumption of good faith, unless you are actually accusing people of being a NSA-adjacent asset. On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 10:08 AM alicexbt via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > There are a number of individuals who have stated opposition to attempting > to activate a CTV soft fork in the near term: > > https://gist.github.com/michaelfolkson/352a503f4f9fc5de89af528d86a1b718 > > > sheshek found some issues with the list and some of them are not really an > opposition for CTV. Others do not have any technical details to consider. > > The saddest thing is that if Jeremy's soft fork activation attempt causes > the uncertainty, confusion and disruption I fear it could it will make > future soft forks that do have community consensus orders of magnitude > harder to pull off. > > > > Calling CTV an attack on bitcoin or doing personal attacks on Jeremy and > other developers on social media that support CTV won't help. Developers > should be free to propose improvements and write code. Users can decide if > they want to run this code. Just because someone is opposing a change and > prefers status quo does not mean it is better for Bitcoin. Attackers have > used such things in past for many open source projects. > > Example: Someone signed up on the Tor Project mailing list and then > participated in discussions to advocate against the removal of malicious > servers > > https://nitter.net/campuscodi/status/1466748897003544579 > > > dev/fd0 > > Sent with ProtonMail secure email. > > ------- Original Message ------- > On Wednesday, April 20th, 2022 at 6:54 PM, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > > The client has a Speedy trial release similar to Taproots with > parameters proposed to be.... > > As I've said before I was hoping we'd avoid this exercise. Best case, it > wastes the time of people who could be working on all sorts of valuable > projects for the ecosystem. Worst case, we take a Russian roulette style > gamble with a chain split. > > But here's a summary of the basic facts: > > The latest Bitcoin Core release candidate (23.0) does not contain any new > soft fork code, either CTV code or any new activation code. Running Bitcoin > Core 23.0 out the box will not signal for any new soft fork and will not > enforce any new soft fork rules (CTV or otherwise). Of course it will > continue to enforce Taproot rules as Taproot activated last year. > > There are a number of individuals who have stated opposition to attempting > to activate a CTV soft fork in the near term: > > https://gist.github.com/michaelfolkson/352a503f4f9fc5de89af528d86a1b718 > > Most of those individuals haven't logged their opposition on Jeremy's site: > https://utxos.org/signals/ > > Hence their views haven't been included or discussed in Jeremy's latest > blog post. > > Chain split risk > > I can't predict how many full nodes and miners will run Jeremy's client > attempting to activate CTV. One would expect that many will continue to run > versions of Bitcoin Core that will not enforce CTV rules and will not > activate it. But whether Jeremy's client will be a majority, significant > minority, insignificant minority of full nodes and miners would be > speculation on my part. (Personally I highly doubt those running Jeremy's > client will be a majority which leaves a significant minority and > insignificant minority as the most likely options). > > Jeremy's client is intending to use Speedy Trial presumably with similar > parameters to that used for Taproot. That would mean seeking 90 percent of > miners to signal for this CTV soft fork activation attempt. > > Assuming 90 percent of miners don't signal for it in one of the Speedy > Trial windows then the activation attempt will have failed and it will be > back in Jeremy's court whether he tries again with a different activation > attempt. > > Assuming 90 percent of miners do signal for it (unlikely in my opinion but > presumably still a possibility) then the CTV soft fork could activate > unless full nodes resist it. This resistance would most likely be in the > form of a UASF style client which rejects blocks that apply the CTV rules > and/or includes transactions that don't meet the CTV rules post activation. > We would now be in chain split territory with two different assets and > blockchains like we had with BTC and BCH. > > If I oppose this activation attempt and the associated chain split risk > what should I do? > > Firstly, you can register your opposition to this soft fork activation > attempt on Jeremy's site: https://utxos.org/signals/ > > It seems Jeremy will continue this activation attempt regardless but it > will be useful for others to see clearly that this a contentious soft fork > activation attempt and act accordingly. So far only 3 individuals' > opposition is registered on his site. > > Secondly, if it is looking like 90 percent (or whatever percentage Jeremy > uses) of miners are going to signal for a CTV soft fork then you can > consider joining a UASF style effort to resist the soft fork activation > attempt. I will certainly seek to participate and will continue to inform > this list of efforts in this direction. > > The saddest thing is that if Jeremy's soft fork activation attempt causes > the uncertainty, confusion and disruption I fear it could it will make > future soft forks that do have community consensus orders of magnitude > harder to pull off. There are a number of soft fork proposals that I'm > personally excited about (enabling covenants, eltoo, Simplicity, CISA etc) > that long term we might get with a sensible approach to only activating > soft forks that have community consensus. But the more uncertainty, > confusion and disruption we create over contentious soft forks the more > dangerous any soft fork of any form will appear. The primary focus will > need to be resisting soft forks that don't have community consensus and > ensuring Bitcoin doesn't splinter into a large number of different > assets/blockchains with different combinations of soft forks active. > > So if you oppose this soft fork activation attempt please voice your > opposition, run full node software that doesn't include CTV and CTV > activation code such as Bitcoin Core and if/when necessary and available > run full node software that proactively rejects application of the CTV > rules. > > -- > Michael Folkson > Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com > Keybase: michaelfolkson > PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3 > > ------- Original Message ------- > On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 18:31, Jeremy Rubin via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > Devs, > > In advance of the CTV meeting today, I wanted to share what my next step > is in advocating for CTV, as well as 7 theses for why I believe it to be > the right course of action to take at this time. > > Please see the post at > https://rubin.io/bitcoin/2022/04/17/next-steps-bip119/. > > As always, open to hear any and all feedback, > > Jeremy > > > archived at: > https://web.archive.org/web/20220419172825/https://rubin.io/bitcoin/2022/04/17/next-steps-bip119/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --000000000000ecae5c05dd2ac12d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ironically assumptions of bad faith are going to kill any = proposal, resulting in the status quo.

Let's keep th= e assumption of good faith, unless you are actually accusing people of bein= g a NSA-adjacent asset.

On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 10:08 AM alicexbt via= bitcoin-dev <b= itcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
There are a number of individuals who have sta= ted opposition to attempting to activate a CTV soft fork in the near term:<= /span>


sheshek found some issues with the list and some of them are no= t really an opposition for CTV. Others do not have any technical details to= consider.

The saddest= thing is that if Jeremy's soft fork activation attempt causes the unce= rtainty, confusion and disruption I fear it could it will make future soft = forks that do have community consensus orders of magnitude harder to pull o= ff.=C2=A0


Calling CTV an attack on bitcoin or doing personal attacks on Jeremy an= d other developers on social media that support CTV won't help. Develop= ers should be free to propose improvements and write code. Users can decide= if they want to run this code. Just because someone is opposing a change a= nd prefers status quo does not mean it is better for Bitcoin. Attackers hav= e used such things in past for many open source projects.
=
Example:=C2=A0Someone signed up on the Tor Project mai= ling list and then participated in discussions to advocate against the remo= val of malicious servers



dev/fd0

Sent with ProtonMail secure email.

------- Original Message -------
On Wednesday, April 20th, 2022 at 6:54 PM, Michael Folkson via bitc= oin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> The client= has a Speedy trial release similar to Taproots with parameters proposed to= be....

As I've said before I was h= oping we'd avoid this exercise. Best case, it wastes the time of people= who could be working on all sorts of valuable projects for the ecosystem. = Worst case, we take a Russian roulette style gamble with a chain split.=C2= =A0

But here's a summary of the bas= ic facts:

The latest Bitcoin Core relea= se candidate (23.0) does not contain any new soft fork code, either CTV cod= e or any new activation code. Running Bitcoin Core 23.0 out the box will no= t signal for any new soft fork and will not enforce any new soft fork rules= (CTV or otherwise). Of course it will continue to enforce Taproot rules as= Taproot activated last year.

There are= a number of individuals who have stated opposition to attempting to activa= te a CTV soft fork in the near term:

https://gist.= github.com/michaelfolkson/352a503f4f9fc5de89af528d86a1b718=C2=A0
<= div style=3D"font-family:arial;font-size:14px">
Most of those individuals haven't logged = their opposition on Jeremy's site:

Hence their views haven't been included or = discussed in Jeremy's latest blog post.

Chain split risk
=
I can't predi= ct how many full nodes and miners will run Jeremy's client attempting t= o activate CTV. One would expect that many will continue to run versions of= Bitcoin Core that will not enforce CTV rules and will not activate it. But= whether Jeremy's client will be a majority, significant minority, insi= gnificant minority of full nodes and miners would be speculation on my part= . (Personally I highly doubt those running Jeremy's client will be a ma= jority which leaves a significant minority and insignificant minority as th= e most likely options).

Jeremy's cl= ient is intending to use Speedy Trial presumably with similar parameters to= that used for Taproot. That would mean seeking 90 percent of miners to sig= nal for this CTV soft fork activation attempt.=C2=A0

Assuming 90 percent of miners don't signal for it in one = of the Speedy Trial windows then the activation attempt will have failed an= d it will be back in Jeremy's court whether he tries again with a diffe= rent activation attempt.

Assuming 90 pe= rcent of miners do signal for it (unlikely in my opinion but presumably sti= ll a possibility) then the CTV soft fork could activate unless full nodes r= esist it. This resistance would most likely be in the form of a UASF style = client which rejects blocks that apply the CTV rules and/or includes transa= ctions that don't meet the CTV rules post activation. We would now be i= n chain split territory with two different assets and blockchains like we h= ad with BTC and BCH.
<= br>
If I oppose this a= ctivation attempt and the associated chain split risk what should I do?

Firstly, you can register your opposition = to this soft fork activation attempt on Jeremy's site:=C2=A0https://utxos.org/signals/

It seems Jeremy will continue this activation attempt regardle= ss but it will be useful for others to see clearly that this a contentious = soft fork activation attempt and act accordingly. So far only 3 individuals= ' opposition is registered on his site.

Secondly, if it is looking like 90 percent (or whatever percentage Jer= emy uses) of miners are going to signal for a CTV soft fork then you can co= nsider joining a UASF style effort to resist the soft fork activation attem= pt. I will certainly seek to participate and will continue to inform this l= ist of efforts in this direction.=C2=A0

The saddest thing is that if Jeremy's soft fork activation attempt cau= ses the uncertainty, confusion and disruption I fear it could it will make = future soft forks that do have community consensus orders of magnitude hard= er to pull off. There are a number of soft fork proposals that I'm pers= onally excited about (enabling covenants, eltoo, Simplicity, CISA etc) that= long term we might get with a sensible approach to only activating soft fo= rks that have community consensus. But the more uncertainty, confusion and = disruption we create over contentious soft forks the more dangerous any sof= t fork of any form will appear. The primary focus will need to be resisting= soft forks that don't have community consensus and ensuring Bitcoin do= esn't splinter into a large number of different assets/blockchains with= different combinations of soft forks active.

So if you oppose this soft fork activation attempt please voice your= opposition, run full node software that doesn't include CTV and CTV ac= tivation code such as Bitcoin Core and if/when necessary and available run = full node software that proactively rejects application of the CTV rules.

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

------- Original Message -------
On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 18:31, Jeremy Rubin via bitcoin-dev= <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

Devs,

In advance of the CTV meeting today, I wanted to share what my next= step is in advocating for CTV, as well as 7 theses for why I believe it to= be the right course of action to take at this time.

Please see= the post at https://rubin.i= o/bitcoin/2022/04/17/next-steps-bip119/.

As always, ope= n to hear any and all feedback,

Jeremy


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--000000000000ecae5c05dd2ac12d--