1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
|
Delivery-date: Fri, 06 Dec 2024 17:10:15 -0800
Received: from mail-yw1-f191.google.com ([209.85.128.191])
by mail.fairlystable.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256
(Exim 4.94.2)
(envelope-from <bitcoindev+bncBCU2P6FJ3EBBB3OAZ25AMGQE4WGKIHI@googlegroups.com>)
id 1tJjKo-0001FD-Iy
for bitcoindev@gnusha.org; Fri, 06 Dec 2024 17:10:15 -0800
Received: by mail-yw1-f191.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-6ef8494edb2sf26309977b3.2
for <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>; Fri, 06 Dec 2024 17:10:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=googlegroups.com; s=20230601; t=1733533808; x=1734138608; darn=gnusha.org;
h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post
:list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-sender:mime-version
:subject:references:in-reply-to:message-id:to:from:date:sender:from
:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to;
bh=MgCjooEWZMwuO0Gbxbl8/fDBYDmh8bLdFD44jGq/Muk=;
b=k+z09H/b77nn0mrHu4HSAl1US53HqUFF4f+oRMMwESKAim/JqwMxMDdeJeuOOXEFRO
OdYDE67UxqdW5SLd2JeutOCqXF0s+68hY4cL53p0lEYTyiGbfPI7d6HqtLCiY+8MIS7Y
jGrICMU0/lA/NFxkAWzUMhRrMwJIYWMNojYsSV+tXL57W3Rc2ZJQk7l5hKSHFxKmyvud
r5EerWT+nNKIHZ1fQl+k2zsSV0TnLGIvFNBPQ4A01wf99J9SACVpg61ImXMBPO01K8Ok
K+aGQJ1nTWl3rqXgzdc3YGMSDx7+20OC/S0kEZOL/feSqQ2hHZVwRT/l0T9mKrF4Rch6
h0Gw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1733533808; x=1734138608; darn=gnusha.org;
h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post
:list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-sender:mime-version
:subject:references:in-reply-to:message-id:to:from:date:from:to:cc
:subject:date:message-id:reply-to;
bh=MgCjooEWZMwuO0Gbxbl8/fDBYDmh8bLdFD44jGq/Muk=;
b=T0gCM3MJmOWaeOcY94GcdYG0j0AXt+fu4sV3BBXsuPQ7wMcuOlQtwSg5ioi5UddqTn
M74sRGSPNujUerugzKOLLOn8cVs60MNIl0CiFnzsWbIvTYhbwLN1umsmd6Z/3K/j3vkb
ZEyQWpOUudKAe+JbECDd+RO3SoMa9S3pYfApdjVXP0V2aJi4zBoDMT8TPDqVMabefl1E
d6w1dg1H8pw2LgCX9rC7bOV6392+9EeRffqCxUH5Kt4aJzfFYyiSYzTn3p2fwfFxu2CE
lHJ1OzaJpxOrAdZHMW7k7dNvQOjLBevo7Kh1Lm0JaqRaUQX/DkvZPpAX4KWgF5GV1T8L
E4hg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1733533808; x=1734138608;
h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post
:list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-sender:mime-version
:subject:references:in-reply-to:message-id:to:from:date:x-beenthere
:x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id
:reply-to;
bh=MgCjooEWZMwuO0Gbxbl8/fDBYDmh8bLdFD44jGq/Muk=;
b=OdWhTnNYc1TZpOeXTmMI/kksHiimBquBxrdKKPFlPpF2sq3PS3fPevml1RTbCSvxyU
dMIAZqBFwtxlTOEIWy1l7oHM2WJ8xlM6bdi9Edm5nzZ8dRN/TKAmuFd1t2+gOqO3vrSh
7XGgd8cq2GvX6PiU3Wzi6n34p/XWB52UNufDZvJjf8pze4bWrlP0ABL7GukfS0DMLcQj
7d+EC56WtLRFuGZENe4+C8dr+xKmganv+p7+sVAmTicRq3MjQWrZ/+rdeYN5AJ+kIjxY
Yh/NHGEh2pIkMEK1+llWPqfWMLriPBwRMTTYRdGEdqh/uKEkp8hv9Wehgf2skSIXXBOf
7K5g==
Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXCVn5HhkeuxM+CQAi+b0orem3S7TPOwL73TUBZfT3/wR3wUlZUcLYzymN7NVNwFYfNw2kHnUAVjxig@gnusha.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyotHnUOs/a2Oocuep7jZ5RK+oWWBJD2rC6uJakzWs/zLJevsJY
AZTtA2dWU8+HmotPUVtsothmdLcupMYcUxPjPUPs58iZ6WmsEZ+A
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFaJriTQhHLWypP8RZmoj5qqkQKUKO9kVEgmBHITV59uLGV5pAnShmwFMzsvqtbGfznOG7ieg==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:2b8f:b0:e2b:d505:86a9 with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-e3a0b07c680mr4153091276.4.1733533807857;
Fri, 06 Dec 2024 17:10:07 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
Received: by 2002:a25:df51:0:b0:e38:7d9d:de43 with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-e39f201ed63ls818197276.2.-pod-prod-02-us;
Fri, 06 Dec 2024 17:10:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:6d10:b0:6ef:5fee:1c92 with SMTP id 00721157ae682-6efe3bceb1emr64849127b3.2.1733533804724;
Fri, 06 Dec 2024 17:10:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 2002:a05:690c:4092:b0:6ef:7d10:5a2f with SMTP id 00721157ae682-6efe3f0fab7ms7b3;
Fri, 6 Dec 2024 16:29:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:4d43:b0:6ee:9cb7:dc24 with SMTP id 00721157ae682-6efe3c74e88mr54806237b3.38.1733531390847;
Fri, 06 Dec 2024 16:29:50 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2024 16:29:50 -0800 (PST)
From: /dev /fd0 <alicexbtong@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Development Mailing List <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>
Message-Id: <6d375199-834e-4630-8b5c-fcc5ed137cb1n@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <941b8c22-0b2c-4734-af87-00f034d79e2e@gmail.com>
References: <028c0197-5c45-4929-83a9-cfe7c87d17f4n@googlegroups.com>
<941b8c22-0b2c-4734-af87-00f034d79e2e@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Covenants Support - Bitcoin Wiki
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="----=_Part_159906_2081262242.1733531390653"
X-Original-Sender: alicexbtong@gmail.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <bitcoindev.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 786775582512
List-Post: <https://groups.google.com/group/bitcoindev/post>, <mailto:bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <https://groups.google.com/support/>, <mailto:bitcoindev+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <https://groups.google.com/group/bitcoindev
List-Subscribe: <https://groups.google.com/group/bitcoindev/subscribe>, <mailto:bitcoindev+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:googlegroups-manage+786775582512+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>,
<https://groups.google.com/group/bitcoindev/subscribe>
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
------=_Part_159906_2081262242.1733531390653
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_Part_159907_1496702116.1733531390653"
------=_Part_159907_1496702116.1733531390653
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Jonas,
Thank you for reviewing the wiki page.
> 1. Separate Technical Evaluation from Community Support
> A simple solution would be to remove the "Wanting" and "Deficient"
categories.
There are 7 options available to share opinion on an opcode and only 2=20
include community support. If a developer wants to ACK a proposal it is=20
possible to use to 'prefer' or 'acceptable' and 'no' for NACK.=20
We have already changed definition for 3 categories. I removed community=20
support from 'no' and moonsettler rephrased 'prefer' and 'evaluating'.=20
Removing some categories at this point breaks the whole table.=20
At the end of the day bitcoin developers build for community so if someone=
=20
wants to play safe and use 'deficient' and 'wanting', its their choice and=
=20
I think we should allow such freedom to express themselves.=20
> 2. Require Stating Reasons for Objections
A column for adding a link to rationale will be added this weekend. I had=
=20
tweeted about it but forgot to update the mailing list thread.
> Because there is no working group making decisions in Bitcoin,
> community members must individually assess whether proposals have achieve=
d
> rough developer consensus.
> Developers giving positive technical evaluations are also encouraged to=
=20
share
> their reasoning, as this can help inform others' assessments.
I agree with you on this and I have requested everyone to respond to this=
=20
thread.
> 3. Add Links to BIP Drafts
I have added the links to BIP drafts for all opcodes.
/dev/fd0
floppy disk guy
On Saturday, December 7, 2024 at 4:18:21=E2=80=AFAM UTC+5:30 Jonas Nick wro=
te:
> Hi /dev/fd0,
>
> I do not think the segwit support page serves as a suitable template for
> building rough consensus, in general and for covenants in particular. It=
=20
> lacks
> key characteristics that would help in (rough) consensus building as=20
> outlined in
> RFC 7282 [0] (which I strongly recommend reading).
>
> I propose the following changes:
>
> 1. Separate Technical Evaluation from Community Support
>
> The ratings "Deficient" and "Wanting" are supposed to be assigned when a
> proposal considered to have insufficient community support. This creates =
a
> circular problem: the wiki page is meant to help build community support,=
=20
> but
> the ratings already assume certain levels of support. This makes the=20
> ratings
> less useful and risks creating self-fulfilling prophecies.
>
> A simple solution would be to remove the "Wanting" and "Deficient"
> categories.
>
> 2. Require Stating Reasons for Objections
>
> As RFC 7282 states:
>
> > Remember, coming to consensus is a matter of eliminating disagreement.
>
> To achieve this, we need to clearly state objections to enable a meaningf=
ul
> discussion. Each "No" rating should include a link to a mailing list post=
=20
> or
> similar document that explicitly states the objection, covering aspects=
=20
> such
> as technical deficiencies, likelihood of widespread adoption, and impact =
on
> decentralization.
>
> > Then, the purported failings
> > of the choice can be examined by the working group. The objector
> > might convince the rest of the group that the objections are valid
> > and the working group might choose a different path. Conversely, the
> > working group might convince the objector that the concerns can be
> > addressed, or that the choice is simply unappealing (i.e., something
> > the objector can "live with") and not a show-stopper.
>
> Because there is no working group making decisions in Bitcoin,
> community members must individually assess whether proposals have achieve=
d
> rough developer consensus.
>
> Developers giving positive technical evaluations are also encouraged to=
=20
> share
> their reasoning, as this can help inform others' assessments.
>
> 3. Add Links to BIP Drafts
>
> All opcodes mentioned on the wiki page presumably have corresponding draf=
t
> BIPs. These should be linked to provide a clear basis for technical
> evaluation.
>
> [0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282
>
--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/=
6d375199-834e-4630-8b5c-fcc5ed137cb1n%40googlegroups.com.
------=_Part_159907_1496702116.1733531390653
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Jonas,<br /><br />Thank you for reviewing the wiki page.<br /><div><br /=
></div><div>>=C2=A01. Separate Technical Evaluation from Community Suppo=
rt<br />> A simple solution would be to remove the "Wanting" and "Defici=
ent"<br />categories.<br /><br />There are 7 options available to share opi=
nion on an opcode and only 2 include community support. If a developer want=
s to ACK a proposal it is possible to use to 'prefer' or 'acceptable' and '=
no' for NACK.=C2=A0<br /><br />We have already changed definition for 3 cat=
egories. I removed community support from 'no' and moonsettler rephrased 'p=
refer' and 'evaluating'. Removing some categories at this point breaks the =
whole table.=C2=A0<br /><br />At the end of the day bitcoin developers buil=
d for community so if someone wants to play safe and use 'deficient' and 'w=
anting', its their choice and I think we should allow such freedom to expre=
ss themselves.=C2=A0<br /><br />>=C2=A0
2. Require Stating Reasons for Objections<br /><br />A column for adding a =
link to rationale will be added this weekend. I had tweeted about it but fo=
rgot to update the mailing list thread.<br /><br />>=C2=A0
Because there is no working group making decisions in Bitcoin,<br />> co=
mmunity members must individually assess whether proposals have achieved<br=
/>> rough developer consensus.<br /><br />>=C2=A0
Developers giving positive technical evaluations are also encouraged to sha=
re<br />> their reasoning, as this can help inform others' assessments.<=
br /><br />I agree with you on this and I have requested everyone to respon=
d to this thread.<br /><br />>=C2=A0
3. Add Links to BIP Drafts<br /><br />I have added the links to BIP drafts =
for all opcodes.</div><div><br /></div><div>/dev/fd0</div><div>floppy disk =
guy<br /><br /></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"auto" class=3D"=
gmail_attr">On Saturday, December 7, 2024 at 4:18:21=E2=80=AFAM UTC+5:30 Jo=
nas Nick wrote:<br/></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin=
: 0 0 0 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex=
;">Hi /dev/fd0,
<br>
<br>I do not think the segwit support page serves as a suitable template fo=
r
<br>building rough consensus, in general and for covenants in particular. I=
t lacks
<br>key characteristics that would help in (rough) consensus building as ou=
tlined in
<br>RFC 7282 [0] (which I strongly recommend reading).
<br>
<br>I propose the following changes:
<br>
<br>1. Separate Technical Evaluation from Community Support
<br>
<br> The ratings "Deficient" and "Wanting" are suppo=
sed to be assigned when a
<br> proposal considered to have insufficient community support. This cr=
eates a
<br> circular problem: the wiki page is meant to help build community su=
pport, but
<br> the ratings already assume certain levels of support. This makes th=
e ratings
<br> less useful and risks creating self-fulfilling prophecies.
<br>
<br> A simple solution would be to remove the "Wanting" and &q=
uot;Deficient"
<br> categories.
<br>
<br>2. Require Stating Reasons for Objections
<br>
<br> As RFC 7282 states:
<br>
<br> > Remember, coming to consensus is a matter of eliminating disag=
reement.
<br>
<br> To achieve this, we need to clearly state objections to enable a me=
aningful
<br> discussion. Each "No" rating should include a link to a m=
ailing list post or
<br> similar document that explicitly states the objection, covering asp=
ects such
<br> as technical deficiencies, likelihood of widespread adoption, and i=
mpact on
<br> decentralization.
<br>
<br> > Then, the purported failings
<br> > of the choice can be examined by the working group. The objec=
tor
<br> > might convince the rest of the group that the objections are v=
alid
<br> > and the working group might choose a different path. Converse=
ly, the
<br> > working group might convince the objector that the concerns ca=
n be
<br> > addressed, or that the choice is simply unappealing (i.e., som=
ething
<br> > the objector can "live with") and not a show-stopper=
.
<br>
<br> Because there is no working group making decisions in Bitcoin,
<br> community members must individually assess whether proposals have a=
chieved
<br> rough developer consensus.
<br>
<br> Developers giving positive technical evaluations are also encourage=
d to share
<br> their reasoning, as this can help inform others' assessments.
<br>
<br>3. Add Links to BIP Drafts
<br>
<br> All opcodes mentioned on the wiki page presumably have correspondin=
g draft
<br> BIPs. These should be linked to provide a clear basis for technical
<br> evaluation.
<br>
<br>[0] <a href=3D"https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282" target=3D=
"_blank" rel=3D"nofollow" data-saferedirecturl=3D"https://www.google.com/ur=
l?hl=3Den&q=3Dhttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282&source=
=3Dgmail&ust=3D1733614799815000&usg=3DAOvVaw2CyErV4cO1T84zeV2G9-HC"=
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282</a>
<br></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">bitcoind=
ev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To view this discussion visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/=
bitcoindev/6d375199-834e-4630-8b5c-fcc5ed137cb1n%40googlegroups.com?utm_med=
ium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoind=
ev/6d375199-834e-4630-8b5c-fcc5ed137cb1n%40googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
------=_Part_159907_1496702116.1733531390653--
------=_Part_159906_2081262242.1733531390653--
|