Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A674CC002D for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2022 09:22:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2A9B82468 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2022 09:22:55 +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 nAWsF7EBIPZp for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2022 09:22:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-yb1-xb31.google.com (mail-yb1-xb31.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b31]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 642BC817F2 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2022 09:22:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yb1-xb31.google.com with SMTP id r3so1307703ybr.6 for ; Wed, 08 Jun 2022 02:22:53 -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=cc1X3ASytig11HUqq3dYYOxiSi2fUfIxZs6qPOXQQ2I=; b=AA2Jc3YPo0ThEY4oiIQTNxlibNcSzLDrOlf588UAgQUcP+RYYwe8/tnD8rElKuPxis m4/Hy9oDr7ldoBhAVH41G8Gzyodg7bTYJtcZ+gIUKPt53pxFkqQG1Gh2XxUbJmKqS9mT isV25Uwtxkb2deCP0TejeS8x1aw9sfhifolP9TsBnE1WmaCEtg3aswGXsolQTdkb+E2H 0kdXtReFlNAeeOmEwd4YygrDFDXjqDz2wuej7k9QJDPO7JG1Sf2gZq2tFN6eCO92XWhq Txku4aZ/l0H/Q+CmihQER1U4ELZH+Sqa6AlIKlPUkYwmPQFqeI5DTQL6s20WermFvEAO Z+cA== 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=cc1X3ASytig11HUqq3dYYOxiSi2fUfIxZs6qPOXQQ2I=; b=O7BZrtWayY0qwRseWrL+7EB+tuU1anYye/82XapdQfDrKom1xhdYiBWxC2VWLvyRQ9 ODvUhkv+k/WsdG2eHvQmWQW8rPNIt0ZICTWKSuzd8iKbvv+WApORgzN+pY2XDfPD3iZC rQceeEaCje1xz5vnAYV7ZqovwF+JC7wjGErI+hr4DYrIAsIfKiDhGPYcwsaQuir2caIs riV9/dXyGsfsaBglhVcvX93+0Ng8RIUHVv6JH+GKawUTDp4x+ecvBrox+pFn9eaBKm1v 3SVsX+0daVa6nE9YPzuzFN1H4hzvfvPm58S1CaI/8Mj7X776kHNpWeUBTr/A+FJaELE5 WfRg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530BMAV4vmUBCFa7MPd1vvtRLJ8Ow0ii7B97HMXeNBaXG04Pr/+t DcfQ+Cyrmi5JUa3tFNsl4h1dGCeGoAXFmb0or1VOVQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwonCw0Yc4mRP28+VwjE7IAztOy+F0aICmzXt99Kwm5HtaO76IAiNsugYwE03q0pgNMsKZQz++vhUCokjeUXNA= X-Received: by 2002:a25:bc83:0:b0:65c:deb1:8c7 with SMTP id e3-20020a25bc83000000b0065cdeb108c7mr34542334ybk.451.1654680172193; Wed, 08 Jun 2022 02:22:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2022 10:22:41 +0100 Message-ID: To: Billy Tetrud , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e17ce405e0ec3f7f" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 08 Jun 2022 20:30:56 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable 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: Wed, 08 Jun 2022 09:22:55 -0000 --000000000000e17ce405e0ec3f7f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Who do you mean by "the non technical folks"? You don't include alicexbt or yourself as a "technical folk", do you? On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 8:38 AM Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Wholeheartedly agree with you alicexbt. There are no technical issues tha= t > have been shown that I'm aware of. Once the non-technical folks have time > to discuss it and realize that, I'm hopeful things will move forward. > Perhaps we can learn from this and figure out how to better catch the > attention of the larger bitcoin community for important changes without > alarming them. > > On Sun, Jun 5, 2022 at 2:48 AM alicexbt via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> Hi Jorge, >> >> >> Misinformation is false or inaccurate information, especially that which >> is deliberately intended to deceive. A combination of 'misleading' and >> 'information'. Here are a few examples and I am sure I missed a lot of >> others but its difficult for me to keep a track of everything: >> >> >> 1) Sapio is open source and everything mentioned in tweet is false: >> https://web.archive.org/web/20220503050140/https://twitter.com/coinableS= /status/1521354192434073602 >> >> 2) Personal attacks on author of BIP 119 with false information: >> https://nitter.net/s3cp256k1/status/1521238634111770624 >> >> 3) Andreas Antonopoulos shared false things about CTV and explained by >> Ryan in this email: >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-May/020414.= html >> >> 4) Misleading things shared in these emails by Michael Folkson: >> >> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-January/019= 728.html >> >> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/02023= 5.html >> >> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/02028= 6.html >> >> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/02034= 3.html >> >> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/02038= 6.html >> >> 5) Peter Todd and Zac shared misleading things about BIP 119, bitcoin an= d >> L2. I replied in this email: >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/02032= 2.html >> >> 6) Social media influencers like Peter McCormack tweeted they don't >> understand BIP 119 but its an attack (this was even retweeted by develop= ers >> like Peter Todd): >> https://nitter.net/PeterMcCormack/status/1521253840963653632 >> >> 7) Some misconceptions about BIP 119 cleared by Bitcoin Magazine: >> https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/what-is-bip-119-bitcoin-controvers= y-explained >> >> 8) There were lies and misinformation about BIP 119 on social media >> according to this Bitcoin Magazine article: >> https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/analyzing-bip119-and-the-controver= sy-surrounding-it >> >> 9) John Carvalho tweeting false things: >> >> https://nitter.net/BitcoinErrorLog/status/1468599535538745359 >> >> https://nitter.net/BitcoinErrorLog/status/1522652884218822658 >> >> https://nitter.net/BitcoinErrorLog/status/1442554615967354880 >> >> https://nitter.net/search?q=3DMIT%20(from%3ABitcoinErrorLog) >> >> 10) Greg Maxwell responding to misinformation related to BIP 119 but >> adding false things in the comments: >> https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/uim560/bip_119/i7dhfpb/ >> >> >> I am not surprised by your email but it would be better if the people wh= o >> are interested in reviewing BIP 119 could raise the bar and not share >> misleading information. >> >> >> /dev/fd0 >> >> >> Sent with Proton Mail secure email. >> ------- Original Message ------- >> On Sunday, June 5th, 2022 at 12:12 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n >> wrote: >> >> >> > "Some people say CTV is contentious, but they're spreading >> misinformation"? Really? Seriously?Come on, guys, we can do better than >> nina jankovich and the "fact checkers". >> > Please, rise the bar. >> > On Fri, Jun 3, 2022, 19:44 alicexbt via bitcoin-dev < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> > >> > > Note: This email is an opinion and not an attack on bitcoin >> > > >> > > Covenants on bitcoin will eventually be implemented with a soft fork= . >> CTV is the easiest and best possible way OP_TX looks good as well. Apart >> from the technical merits, covenants will improve a few other things: >> > > >> > > - Developers can build interesting projects with real demand in >> market. >> > > - Students learn Sapio and not just solidity. >> > > - Better tooling could be available for application developers. >> > > - Maybe we see bitcoin developer hackathons in different countries. >> > > - Demand for block space might increase, it wont be just exchanges >> and coinjoin. >> > > - Funding of bitcoin developers and projects might improve. Wont nee= d >> to convince a few people for grants. >> > > >> > > **Why covenants are not contentious?** >> > > >> > > Some people may write paragraphs about CTV being contentious, spread >> misinformation and do all types of drama, politics etc. on social media = but >> there are zero technical NACKs for CTV. We have discussed other covenant >> proposals in detail on mailing list and IRC meetings with an open minded >> approach. >> > > >> > > All the developers that participated in the discussion are either >> okay with CTV or OP_TX or covenants in general. >> > > >> > > **How and when should covenants be implemented in Bitcoin?** >> > > >> > > I don't think we should wait for years anticipating a proposal that >> everyone will agree on or argue for years to pretend changes are hard in >> Bitcoin. We should improve the review process for soft fork BIPs and sha= re >> honest opinions with agreement, disagreement on technical merits. >> > > >> > > I prefer BIP 8 or improved BIP 8 for soft fork but I won't mind >> anything else being used if that improves Bitcoin. Covenants implemented= in >> Bitcoin before the next cycle would provide opportunity for developers t= o >> build interesting things during the bear market. Ossification supporters >> also believe there is some window that will close soon, maybe doing chan= ges >> considering each case individually will be a better approach. CTV is not= a >> rushed soft fork, less people followed the research and it was not >> mentioned on social media repeatedly by the respected developers like ot= her >> soft forks. >> > > >> > > /dev/fd0 >> > > >> > > >> > > Sent with Proton Mail secure email. >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --000000000000e17ce405e0ec3f7f Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Who do you mean by "the non technical folks"= ;?
You don't include alicexbt or yourself as a "tech= nical folk", do you?


On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 8:38 A= M Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Whol= eheartedly agree with you alicexbt. There are no technical issues that have= been shown that I'm aware of. Once the non-technical folks have time t= o discuss it and realize that, I'm hopeful things will move forward. Pe= rhaps we can learn from this and figure out how to better catch the attenti= on of the larger bitcoin community=C2=A0 for important=C2=A0changes without= alarming them.=C2=A0

On Sun, Jun 5, 2022 at 2:48 AM alicexbt via bitcoin-de= v <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Hi Jorge,


Misinformation is false or inaccurate information, especially that which is= deliberately intended to deceive. A combination of 'misleading' an= d 'information'. Here are a few examples and I am sure I missed a l= ot of others but its difficult for me to keep a track of everything:


1) Sapio is open source and everything mentioned in tweet is false: https://= web.archive.org/web/20220503050140/https://twitter.com/coinableS/status/152= 1354192434073602

2) Personal attacks on author of BIP 119 with false information: https://nitter.net/s3cp256k1/status/1521238634111770624=

3) Andreas Antonopoulos shared false things about CTV and explained by Ryan= in this email: https://= lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-May/020414.html
4) Misleading things shared in these emails by Michael Folkson:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 https:= //lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-January/019728.html<= /a>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://= lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020235.html<= br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://= lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020286.html<= br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://= lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020343.html<= br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://= lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020386.html<= br>
5) Peter Todd and Zac shared misleading things about BIP 119, bitcoin and L= 2. I replied in this email: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/02= 0322.html

6) Social media influencers like Peter McCormack tweeted they don't und= erstand BIP 119 but its an attack (this was even retweeted by developers li= ke Peter Todd): https://nitter.net/Peter= McCormack/status/1521253840963653632

7) Some misconceptions about BIP 119 cleared by Bitcoin Magazine: https://bitcoinmagazine.= com/technical/what-is-bip-119-bitcoin-controversy-explained

8) There were lies and misinformation about BIP 119 on social media accordi= ng to this Bitcoin Magazine article: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/analyzing-b= ip119-and-the-controversy-surrounding-it

9) John Carvalho tweeting false things:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://nitter.net/Bitcoi= nErrorLog/status/1468599535538745359

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://nitter.net/Bitcoi= nErrorLog/status/1522652884218822658

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://nitter.net/Bitcoi= nErrorLog/status/1442554615967354880

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://nitter.net/search?= q=3DMIT%20(from%3ABitcoinErrorLog)

10) Greg Maxwell responding to misinformation related to BIP 119 but adding= false things in the comments: http= s://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/uim560/bip_119/i7dhfpb/


I am not surprised by your email but it would be better if the people who a= re interested in reviewing BIP 119 could raise the bar and not share mislea= ding information.


/dev/fd0


Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
------- Original Message -------
On Sunday, June 5th, 2022 at 12:12 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote:


> "Some people say CTV is contentious, but they're spreading mi= sinformation"? Really? Seriously?Come on, guys, we can do better than = nina jankovich and the "fact checkers".
> Please, rise the bar.
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2022, 19:44 alicexbt via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@li= sts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> > Note: This email is an opinion and not an attack on bitcoin
> >
> > Covenants on bitcoin will eventually be implemented with a soft f= ork. CTV is the easiest and best possible way OP_TX looks good as well. Apa= rt from the technical merits, covenants will improve a few other things: > >
> > - Developers can build interesting projects with real demand in m= arket.
> > - Students learn Sapio and not just solidity.
> > - Better tooling could be available for application developers. > > - Maybe we see bitcoin developer hackathons in different countrie= s.
> > - Demand for block space might increase, it wont be just exchange= s and coinjoin.
> > - Funding of bitcoin developers and projects might improve. Wont = need to convince a few people for grants.
> >
> > **Why covenants are not contentious?**
> >
> > Some people may write paragraphs about CTV being contentious, spr= ead misinformation and do all types of drama, politics etc. on social media= but there are zero technical NACKs for CTV. We have discussed other covena= nt proposals in detail on mailing list and IRC meetings with an open minded= approach.
> >
> > All the developers that participated in the discussion are either= okay with CTV or OP_TX or covenants in general.
> >
> > **How and when should covenants be implemented in Bitcoin?**
> >
> > I don't think we should wait for years anticipating a proposa= l that everyone will agree on or argue for years to pretend changes are har= d in Bitcoin. We should improve the review process for soft fork BIPs and s= hare honest opinions with agreement, disagreement on technical merits.
> >
> > I prefer BIP 8 or improved BIP 8 for soft fork but I won't mi= nd anything else being used if that improves Bitcoin. Covenants implemented= in Bitcoin before the next cycle would provide opportunity for developers = to build interesting things during the bear market. Ossification supporters= also believe there is some window that will close soon, maybe doing change= s considering each case individually will be a better approach. CTV is not = a rushed soft fork, less people followed the research and it was not mentio= ned on social media repeatedly by the respected developers like other soft = forks.
> >
> > /dev/fd0
> >
> >
> > Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundatio= n.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--000000000000e17ce405e0ec3f7f--