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
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B66EEC002D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 1 May 2022 12:46:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5AC080C65
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 1 May 2022 12:46:39 +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 cEc-mgQSNKRU
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 1 May 2022 12:46:38 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-yw1-x112d.google.com (mail-yw1-x112d.google.com
[IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::112d])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5258C80C58
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 1 May 2022 12:46:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-yw1-x112d.google.com with SMTP id
00721157ae682-2f7c424c66cso125217567b3.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 01 May 2022 05:46:38 -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
:cc; bh=ivhumO6ffLC1BvL2qU1MV5yerLu+ODwUZEAVIoimrzQ=;
b=Kejucvls6DizSh3dAMcXO0nsVypj5RMMXoY8TuJ0Dlgq+BI7F6eNgR5SRJo9xEdFAB
F5jKi8dRQLP+Q9ASGF5rMjf8qcHQ4sXGpD+q7cYxgrgigLd2IFa2lvVqnquKYn58o7tD
pjfME3/Bpj3KBKnUklMKgilEFSA8QdF2mVfs48+9HES6VKY8x7nzeS4Pb8NzvjixzQd6
9tNO6oQPItslzwh+sEN6/MBwkUzDGQWrVmYrU8tBeyMn8OhfkBK1p3vAXeLGjBgZczUc
KMKw08uVCEPWW1h7mBYWdIOiTi2PYwXQlWELXHOH8U/4MnU5xJi2+faxMPzRDQbzoTUy
gNKw==
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=ivhumO6ffLC1BvL2qU1MV5yerLu+ODwUZEAVIoimrzQ=;
b=5pmuOJTbbxNKOOVjQHReIxoG0YI88NiWxcGpDkfkKyQ2ljjGlamGppemUZGxVtQXb3
h8fYPKCJk5qsHyD9LJtCuiBzN7aorQZ+KJ1uiEEx+d/D7xpcuRj2Xve46hgPfq2s+6I0
V8HwulD0PdCIp9jUdYlZwnkH6A1I7F/mjZENc6fqnDzTlcOTvM7LaJtj5C6h47sYXYxa
x9XsyX1UwFFLoWNHrxnddhtz0EsscoKWbODtaLMURg46+raSJmjk/VCAWAuxtzKitaX5
G8AyFDzht08NfuCwnHjzhi5JMRHN7voUhzD47pMSUP8AwUTt9Mz3A6q86+yI+NtteB2k
k5cw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53182zktOnc4U9/PXWPZy3w98zTwYIYFNOCNjNjvFeqWaNgxJHcF
ivp4JJFtkThd8OO1PIm2stS3g0gACC3KD0kL7vDG7w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzh5mMlzgg01UPc/F9NMdPL14GpVWZFZp6Ans2xdXrXW7afZ58+tJOnIRLvbV4x4qxjURRzpJzJW1dbBwt93PU=
X-Received: by 2002:a81:6145:0:b0:2f1:7a81:83f with SMTP id
v66-20020a816145000000b002f17a81083fmr7408468ywb.366.1651409197036; Sun, 01
May 2022 05:46:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <EpwH6R7Ol7S4DZ4r_UcSSMU9RysZiRHFKZ2WkWZatUIeU9YE9avRZ-YIiafnf6I6U4tBbEu5xHa4JwcGh0fxMuyY-fGMwpaesfo5XK6SzLc=@protonmail.com>
<WtHCNGNhHAWBer9QnaWajdbJ341jMHQJa23WAPgNaRldKhopPIN7ry8wNAnmfnlAK6j0m7p3NEgckA6kIjWV5_rFla63Bh6HCfAlLHFODsE=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <WtHCNGNhHAWBer9QnaWajdbJ341jMHQJa23WAPgNaRldKhopPIN7ry8wNAnmfnlAK6j0m7p3NEgckA6kIjWV5_rFla63Bh6HCfAlLHFODsE=@protonmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 13:47:54 +0100
Message-ID: <CABm2gDrQXbS=i8j+Ja5PTgYekyH2X06eTOs8SXP8X-dhTy-hiQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: alicexbt <alicexbt@protonmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000918f3405ddf2aad9"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 01 May 2022 20:49:08 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] What to do when contentious soft fork activations
are attempted
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 May 2022 12:46:39 -0000
--000000000000918f3405ddf2aad9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, May 1, 2022, 09:22 alicexbt via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> Maybe the whole thing worked as designed. Some users identified what was
> going on, well known Bitcoin educators such as Andreas Antonopoulos, Jimm=
y
> Song etc brought additional attention to the dangers, a URSF movement
> started to gain momentum and those attempting a contentious soft fork
> activation backed off. (Disappointingly Bitcoin Optech didn't cover my
> previous posts to this mailing list 1
> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-October/019=
535.html>,
> 2
> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-January/019=
728.html>,
> 3
> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/02023=
5.html>
> highlighting the dangers many months ago or recent posts. Normally Optech
> is very high signal.)
>
>
> Some users have been misled and there is nothing great being achieved by
> doing this on social media. Andreas is clueless about BIP 119 and other
> covenant proposals. He is spreading misinformation and some of the URSF
> enthusiasts do not understand what are they even opposing or going to run
> with risks involved.
>
Clueless and spreading disinformation, you say? What misinformation, could
you explain?
> - Avoid personal attacks
>
Could accusing someone of apreading misinformation without prove and
calling him clueless be considered a personal attack?
What do we do with hypocrites and liars?
People who knowingly lie to push their own agenda, how do we protect
against those?
> /dev/fd0
>
> Sent with ProtonMail <https://protonmail.com/> secure email.
>
> ------- Original Message -------
> On Saturday, April 30th, 2022 at 3:23 PM, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
>
>
> I=E2=80=99ve been in two minds on whether to completely move on to other =
topics or
> to formulate some thoughts on the recent attempt to activate a contentiou=
s
> soft fork. In the interests of those of us who have wasted
> days/weeks/months of our time on this (with no personal upside) and who
> don=E2=80=99t want to repeat this exercise again I thought I should at le=
ast raise
> the issue for discussion of what should be done differently if this is
> tried again in future.
>
> This could be Jeremy with OP_CTV at a later point (assuming it is still
> contentious) or anyone who wants to pick up a single opcode that is not y=
et
> activated on Bitcoin and try to get miners to signal for it bypassing
> technical concerns from many developers, bypassing Bitcoin Core and
> bypassing users.
>
> Maybe the whole thing worked as designed. Some users identified what was
> going on, well known Bitcoin educators such as Andreas Antonopoulos, Jimm=
y
> Song etc brought additional attention to the dangers, a URSF movement
> started to gain momentum and those attempting a contentious soft fork
> activation backed off. (Disappointingly Bitcoin Optech didn't cover my
> previous posts to this mailing list 1
> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-October/019=
535.html>,
> 2
> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-January/019=
728.html>,
> 3
> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/02023=
5.html>
> highlighting the dangers many months ago or recent posts. Normally Optech
> is very high signal.)
>
> Alternatively this was the first time a contentious soft fork activation
> was attempted, we were all woefully unprepared for it and none of us knew
> what we were doing.
>
> I=E2=80=99m unsure on the above. I=E2=80=99d be interested to hear though=
ts. What I am
> sure of is that it is totally unacceptable for one individual to bring th=
e
> entire Bitcoin network to the brink of a chain split. There has to be a
> personal cost to that individual dissuading them from trying it again
> otherwise they=E2=80=99re motivated to try it again every week/month. Per=
haps the
> personal cost that the community is now prepared if that individual tries
> it again is sufficient. I=E2=80=99m not sure. Obviously Bitcoin is a perm=
issionless
> network, Bitcoin Core and other open source projects are easily forked an=
d
> no authority (I=E2=80=99m certainly no authority) can stop things like th=
is
> happening again.
>
> I=E2=80=99ll follow the responses if people have thoughts (I won't be res=
ponding
> to the instigators of this contentious soft fork activation attempt) but
> other than that I=E2=80=99d like to move on to other things than contenti=
ous soft
> fork activations. Thanks to those who have expressed concerns publicly (t=
oo
> many to name, Bob McElrath was often wording arguments better than I coul=
d)
> and who were willing to engage with the URSF conversation. If an individu=
al
> can go directly to miners to get soft forks activated bypassing technical
> concerns from many developers, bypassing Bitcoin Core and bypassing users
> Bitcoin is fundamentally broken. The reason I still have hope that it isn=
't
> is that during a period of general apathy some people were willing to sta=
nd
> up and actively resist it.
>
> --
> 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
>
--000000000000918f3405ddf2aad9
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"auto"><div><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" =
class=3D"gmail_attr">On Sun, May 1, 2022, 09:22 alicexbt via bitcoin-dev &l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@list=
s.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex=
"><div style=3D"font-family:arial;font-size:14px"><p>Hi Michael,<br>
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Maybe the whole thing worked as designed. Some users identified what was=
going on, well known Bitcoin educators such as Andreas Antonopoulos, Jimmy=
Song etc brought additional attention to the dangers, a URSF movement star=
ted to gain momentum and those attempting a contentious soft fork activatio=
n backed off.=C2=A0(Disappointingly Bitcoin Optech didn't cover my prev=
ious posts to this mailing list <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.or=
g/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-October/019535.html" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"=
noreferrer">1</a>, <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/b=
itcoin-dev/2022-January/019728.html" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">2=
</a>, <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/20=
22-April/020235.html" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">3</a> highlighti=
ng the dangers many months ago or recent posts. Normally Optech is very hig=
h signal.)</p>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
Some users have been misled and there is nothing great being achieved by do=
ing this on social media. Andreas is clueless about BIP 119 and other coven=
ant proposals. He is spreading misinformation and some of the URSF enthusia=
sts do not understand what are they even opposing or going to run with risk=
s involved.</p></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir=3D"auto">Clueless an=
d spreading disinformation, you say? What misinformation, could you explain=
?</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-le=
ft:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style=3D"font-family:arial;font-si=
ze:14px"><p><br>
- Avoid personal attacks<br></p></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir=3D"=
auto">Could accusing someone of apreading misinformation without prove and =
calling him clueless be considered a personal attack?</div><div dir=3D"auto=
">What do we do with hypocrites and liars?</div><div dir=3D"auto">People wh=
o knowingly lie to push their own agenda, how do we protect against those?<=
/div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_quot=
e"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left=
:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style=3D"font-family:arial;font-size=
:14px"><p></p><p>
<br>
/dev/fd0<br>
<br>
</p><div style=3D"font-family:arial;font-size:14px">
<div>
</div>
<div>
Sent with <a href=3D"https://protonmail.com/" rel=3D"noopener noref=
errer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">ProtonMail</a> secure email.
</div>
</div>
<br>
------- Original Message -------<br>
On Saturday, April 30th, 2022 at 3:23 PM, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev <=
a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank" r=
el=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a> wrote:<p></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I=E2=80=99ve been in two minds on whether to completely move on to other=
topics or to formulate some thoughts on the recent attempt to activate a c=
ontentious soft fork. In the interests of those of us who have wasted days/=
weeks/months of our time on this (with no personal upside) and who don=E2=
=80=99t want to repeat this exercise again I thought I should at least rais=
e the issue for discussion of what should be done differently if this is tr=
ied again in future.</p>
<p>This could be Jeremy with OP_CTV at a later point (assuming it is still =
contentious) or anyone who wants to pick up a single opcode that is not yet=
activated on Bitcoin and try to get miners to signal for it bypassing tech=
nical concerns from many developers, bypassing Bitcoin Core and bypassing u=
sers.</p>
<p>Maybe the whole thing worked as designed. Some users identified what was=
going on, well known Bitcoin educators such as Andreas Antonopoulos, Jimmy=
Song etc brought additional attention to the dangers, a URSF movement star=
ted to gain momentum and those attempting a contentious soft fork activatio=
n backed off.=C2=A0(Disappointingly Bitcoin Optech didn't cover my prev=
ious posts to this mailing list <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.or=
g/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-October/019535.html" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"=
noreferrer">1</a>, <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/b=
itcoin-dev/2022-January/019728.html" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">2=
</a>, <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/20=
22-April/020235.html" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">3</a> highlighti=
ng the dangers many months ago or recent posts. Normally Optech is very hig=
h signal.)</p>
<p>Alternatively this was the first time a contentious soft fork activation=
was attempted, we were all woefully unprepared for it and none of us knew =
what we were doing.</p>
<p>I=E2=80=99m unsure on the above. I=E2=80=99d be interested to hear thoug=
hts. What I am sure of is that it is totally unacceptable for one individua=
l to bring the entire Bitcoin network to the brink of a chain split. There =
has to be a personal cost to that individual dissuading them from trying it=
again otherwise they=E2=80=99re motivated to try it again every week/month=
. Perhaps the personal cost that the community is now prepared if that indi=
vidual tries it again is sufficient. I=E2=80=99m not sure. Obviously Bitcoi=
n is a permissionless network, Bitcoin Core and other open source projects =
are easily forked and no authority (I=E2=80=99m certainly no authority) can=
stop things like this happening again.</p>
<p>I=E2=80=99ll follow the responses if people have thoughts (I won't b=
e responding to the instigators of this contentious soft fork activation at=
tempt) but other than that I=E2=80=99d like to move on to other things than=
contentious soft fork activations. Thanks to those who have expressed conc=
erns publicly (too many to name, Bob McElrath was often wording arguments b=
etter than I could) and who were willing to engage with the URSF conversati=
on. If an individual can go directly to miners to get soft forks activated =
bypassing technical concerns from many developers, bypassing Bitcoin Core a=
nd bypassing users Bitcoin is fundamentally broken. The reason I still have=
hope that it isn't is that during a period of general apathy some peop=
le were willing to stand up and actively resist it.</p>
<p>--<br>
Michael Folkson<br>
Email: michaelfolkson at <a href=3D"http://protonmail.com" target=3D"_blank=
" rel=3D"noreferrer">protonmail.com</a><br>
Keybase: michaelfolkson<br>
PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3</p>
</blockquote></div>_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank" =
rel=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundati=
on.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>
--000000000000918f3405ddf2aad9--
|