Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51934C002D for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 15:20:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30AA14015F for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 15:20:34 +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: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cSlQ9NVLxlEo for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 15:20:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-lj1-x236.google.com (mail-lj1-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::236]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D8DD4018D for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 15:20:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lj1-x236.google.com with SMTP id m23so9665111ljb.8 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 08:20:31 -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=zo74BuY1s/YifMsyB0/1pCet90xn/hs9znwmqkubmt4=; b=W0Ms16u75z5MlDNmJZd6wwE8iOEJuNPKfhiRvweQcu+rslcOverCawXjNNEdXtLKiW cHS4yDIZuDKlbeNbl95qj0WDGLUuOifqb2y4IsLMevd0sAmVId7MCyAxrdrOIpo2eRrK cOmVN79TpKGQeOnlgLajNUxnQ3iQPWXJQ9DelzPmpGEmc2dF/2C5cmxZ0XekX0bc5ili vaUzkPHZJFpWSqzssMh13h8rQfzYhkPaPe9pt62pdhrpDgKCvzLrazWsEhIz+iTfTub0 Qh7vsH8E90zaIpxivLiXPyY4+91cAsqJu5TQ6JwLy2IS0hTQe69apf16yKHto2nZVHwy frcQ== 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=zo74BuY1s/YifMsyB0/1pCet90xn/hs9znwmqkubmt4=; b=oXd1BFLIXKbu9lVIXruGqRPkWEm4QX6d/TpkYR5Bml0jsLhTm61BDpljI0bPGINpRt JaneCIToflluj6N6NgqmgRID9W21PCRp5th/ZZ/lPSpxIYuulhkcRhhuMPFawoHo6svM 8SPGWqbU9S6ZE5Ca8zb8BOvIzjRWIVGpUpfBNytaJeYFL4mNUBzfrmcPqRmL1dp+ZAn9 3Rmtynck42GjIxRDPYsZ62cMIKXBnPIdVcL+FiUUa2XiPacOhZ6n7sIbPeuP9oZL8c1e ZzHEVYsQZlBaxh/xZgZ4gbeOiuJBGzUOks/vZ3JBi6JCTXBCK4XeMub2w8PSxUb2krlH KhCA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530GeGMEGklmmoHjAhMSJ4eDJuBv2Yrd7JtcVZ6g2V+NFq28yieU msnGp2jrHF7mypiAebJ9cHmLUp52VKLIXk6BsXU1VGfk X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyxZ/Ce7XkvoO3yILrtFxL/jRoP4OkDk6sjBGqKeGx8rvo08XXxr9eFbToAfPOrTbbSMh/KB+szpPT9oLPIssE= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:a545:0:b0:24d:c472:9969 with SMTP id e5-20020a2ea545000000b0024dc4729969mr14284535ljn.376.1650986429531; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 08:20:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <9xz3fyWghx-hWNovENgiaU_FvTKLvGAWq9ooCoeGMsaXT1UV6k9zV9fzjVXj346GNqOPV0UQvlE4YRvOpbnkwk5xUiugraaNK4V2iALskGo=@protonmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Jeremy Rubin Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 08:20:17 -0700 Message-ID: To: Michael Folkson Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a9495105dd903b91" Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 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 15:20:34 -0000 --000000000000a9495105dd903b91 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm a bit confused here. The "personal blog" in question was sent to this list with an archive link and you saw an replied to it. The proposal to make an alternative path hadn't gotten buy in sufficient from those iterating, and given the propensity of people to blow things out of proportion in this list, I wanted to be sure a follow up plan carried some buy before wider dissemination. On Tue, Apr 26, 2022, 6:53 AM Michael Folkson wrote: > Jeremy > > > 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 grou= p > for feedback as a potential plan. > > In the interests of posterity from your personal blog on April 17th [1]: > > "Within a week from today, you=E2=80=99ll find software builds for a CTV = Bitcoin > Client for all platforms linked here: > > - Mac OSX TODO: > - Windows TODO: > - Linux TODO: > > These will be built using GUIX, which are reproducible for verification." > > Doesn't sound to me that this was being "offered up for discussion". A > week from April 17th would have been Sunday April 24th (2 days ago). > Readers of this mailing list would have had no idea of these plans. > > =E2=80=8B> You've inaccurately informed the list on something no one has > communicated committed intent for. > > I'll let readers assess from the above who is accurately informing the > mailing list and who is using personal blog posts and messaging apps to > give a completely different impression to one set of people versus reader= s > of this mailing list. > > I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume incompetence > rather than malice but when it comes to potential chain splits it doesn't > really matter which it is. It has the same effect and poses the same > network risk. If and when you try something like this again I hope this i= s > remembered. > > The Binance hack rollback suggestion, the NACKing then coin flip > suggestion on Taproot activation and now this. It seems like this trillio= n > dollar industry is a joke to you. I know we aren't supposed to get person= al > on this mailing list but honestly if you are going to continue with these > stunts I'd rather you do them on a different blockchain. > > [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 Tuesday, April 26th, 2022 at 6:48 AM, Jeremy Rubin < > jeremy.l.rubin@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 grou= p > for feedback as a potential plan. You've inaccurately informed the list o= n > 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 rathe= r > 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 fro= m > my blog. This approach is a decent one, even though it requires two thing= s, > because it is simple. I think it's important that people keep this in min= d > because that is not a joke, the intention was that the correct set of che= ck > 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 prepare= d > 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 fork= d > script and making sure it is easy to use as the simplest and most effecti= ve > 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 i= n >> 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 aroun= d >> August 1st 2022. >> >> Hence for now the drama seems to have been averted. I am deeply skeptica= l >> 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 exa= ct >> 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 maki= ng >> 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 signal= ing >> 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 cours= e >> it is an imperfect heuristic. Ideally the community would be given >> sufficient time to come to an informed view independently on what softwa= re >> 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 t= o >> trust "those.. around in 2015-2017" you're asking people to blindly trus= t >> 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 an= d >> 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 yo= u >>> care about Bitcoin's consensus rules I'd request you pay attention so y= ou >>> 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 motivate= d >>> parties who are incentivized to break nodes off from Bitcoin and may se= ek >>> 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 tha= t >>> things will be made as convoluted as possible in a way intended to conf= use >>> and information will be withheld until the last minute. When in doubt i= t is >>> generally better to rely on the status quo and tried and trusted. In th= is >>> case that would be Bitcoin Core. Alternative releases such as those see= king >>> to attempt to activate CTV or indeed those seeking to resist the activa= tion >>> 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 >> > > --000000000000a9495105dd903b91 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm a bit confused here. The "personal blog= " in question was sent to this list with an archive link and you saw a= n replied to it.

The pro= posal to make an alternative path hadn't gotten buy in sufficient from = those iterating, and given the propensity of people to blow things out of p= roportion in this list, I wanted to be sure a follow up plan carried some b= uy before wider dissemination.

On Tue, Apr 26, 2022, 6:53 AM Mich= ael Folkson <michaelfol= kson@protonmail.com> wrote:
=
J= eremy

>=C2=A0The re= ason there was not a mailing list post is because that's not a committe= d plan, it was offered up for discussion to a public working group for feed= back as a potential plan.

In the interests of poste= rity from your personal blog on April 17th [1]:

&qu= ot;Within a week from today, you=E2=80=99ll find = software builds for a CTV Bitcoin Client for all platforms linked here:
  • Mac OSX TODO:
    • Windows TODO:
  • Linux TODO:

These will be built = using GUIX, which are reproducible for verification."

Doesn't= sound to me that this was being "offered up for discussion".=C2= =A0A week from April 17th would have bee= n Sunday April 24th (2 days ago). Readers of this mailing list would have h= ad no idea of these plans.

=E2=80=8B>=C2=A0You've inaccurately informed the list on something no one has co= mmunicated committed intent for.

I'll let readers assess from the above who is accurately informing = the mailing list and who is using personal blog posts and messaging apps to= give a completely different impression to one set of people versus readers= of this mailing list.

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt a= nd assume incompetence rather than malice but when it comes to potential ch= ain splits it doesn't really matter which it is. It has the same effect= and poses the same network risk. If and when you try something like this a= gain I hope this is remembered.

The Binance hack rollback suggestion, the NACK= ing then coin flip suggestion on Taproot activation and now this. It seems = like this trillion dollar industry is a joke to you. I know we aren't s= upposed to get personal on this mailing list but honestly if you are going = to continue with these stunts I'd rather you do them on a different blo= ckchain.



--
Michael FolksonEmail: michaelfolkson at protonmail.c= om
Keybase: michaelfolkson
PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 = 214C FEE3

------- Original Message -------
On Tuesday, April 26th, 2022 at 6:48 AM, Jeremy Rubin <j= eremy.l.rubin@gmail.com> wrote:

The reason= there was not a mailing list post is because that's not a committed pl= an, it was offered up for discussion to a public working group for feedback= as a potential plan. You've inaccurately informed the list on somethin= g no one has communicated committed intent for. This was an alternative dis= cussed 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/JeremyRubi= n/status/1518347793903017984 https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin/status/1518477022439247= 872, but do not have a clear next step and am pouring over all the fant= astic feedback I received so far.
=
Further, you're represent= ing the state of affairs as if there's a great need to scramble to gene= rate 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 w= ere made available. I'd be eager to learn what, specifically, you think= the advantages are of a separate binary release rather than a binary + scr= ipt that can handle both cases? I'm asking sincerely because I would ma= ke the modifications to the release I prepared to support that as well, if = they do not entail substantial technical risk. Personally, were I aligned w= ith your preferences, I'd be testing the forkd script and making sure i= t is easy to use as the simplest and most effective way to achieve your end= s.

regards,

=
Jeremy

=
On Mon= , Apr 25, 2022 at 3:44 PM Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:



[1]: https://rubin.io/bitcoin/2022/04/17/next-= steps-bip119/

=
--
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=

------- Original Message -------
On Saturday, April 23rd, 2022 at 11:03 AM, Michael Folkson via bitc= oin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lis= ts.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.

> I f= ear you risk losing respect in the community

I appreciate your concern.

--
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=

------- 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:<= br>
I= f the next few weeks go how I fear they will it could get messy. If you car= e 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 ri= ght 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 t= rusted during that period. There are always a large number of motivated par= ties who are incentivized to break nodes off from Bitcoin and may seek to t= ake 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 u= p. I fear that things will be made as convoluted as possible in a way inten= ded 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 tr= usted. In this case that would be Bitcoin Core. Alternative releases such a= s those seeking to attempt to activate CTV or indeed those seeking to resis= t the activation of CTV really should only be considered if you are informe= d on exactly what you are running.

If y= ou are interested in the effort to resist the contentious soft fork activat= ion 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 prod= uctive things than resisting contentious soft 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.linuxfoun= dation.org
https://l= ists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--000000000000a9495105dd903b91--