Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7B4CC002C for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:58:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 973E860EC4 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:58:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.802 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.802 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, BITCOIN_OBFU_SUBJ=1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mattcorallo.com Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HamVSgjJfHvJ for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:58:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail.as397444.net (mail.as397444.net [69.59.18.99]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E71CA60EA4 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:58:42 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mattcorallo.com; s=1650550864; h=In-Reply-To:From:References:To:Subject: From:Subject:To:Cc:Cc:Reply-To; bh=qm3lklNdTC6SZHb5aICry3TEFr3/iz4Uxue6iR4HRJ4=; b=O3Soliuzvt8KYNLWJfof9Dxl45 fSrc73J0e1ybRPOUen+yaGkMGTBiQs8TglBuZyAMuPviVHeP14DXJo9ATTnj/BYELzGYW/jN1Dfrj vjN3we6wdQskdZvh1sgI6yJqGNgKCKA9doxr7zPB2CXuEJwmh94dEV0ncj/bqHMKiXr2TFMavpbyX S6IA2GfFvYLoJPKBrjHjgEIhBO73dgwNtzTWoiVHfOu8ygSS1OH9JMDpo8lTivYhpC2G7v1X+yGfB 352Oqsme/F0CrZ0fNxAhSbMT4E1aAX0d7MGnbZXf7ArZPJ/kZNWfnwsL/3ktp1OmJuwvhaSw80gSj Z4NlJWVg==; Received: by mail.as397444.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) (Exim) (envelope-from ) id 1nhYGW-000A67-5j; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:58:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 07:58:39 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Language: en-US To: "David A. Harding" , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion References: <64a34b4d46461da322be51b53ec2eb01@dtrt.org> From: Matt Corallo In-Reply-To: <64a34b4d46461da322be51b53ec2eb01@dtrt.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-DKIM-Note: Keys used to sign are likely public at https://as397444.net/dkim/mattcorallo.com X-DKIM-Note: For more info, see https://as397444.net/dkim/ Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Automatically reverting ("transitory") soft forks, e.g. for CTV 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 14:58:43 -0000 On 4/20/22 6:04 PM, David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Hi all, > > The main criticisms I'm aware of against CTV seem to be along the following lines: > > 1. Usage, either: >   a. It won't receive significant real-world usage, or >   b. It will be used but we'll end up using something better later > 2. An unused CTV will need to be supported forever, creating extra maintenance >    burden, increasing security surface, and making it harder to evaluate later >    consensus change proposals due to their interactions with CTV > Also "is this even the way we should be going about covenants?" Given there are still various proposals for covenants floating around and we're still in the very early stages of the reconciliation of them and the Bitcoin technical community (or at least those interested in working on covenants) doesn't even remotely show any signs of consensus around any concrete proposal, talking about a "way forward for CTV" or activating CTV or coming up with some way of shoving it into Bitcoin at this stage is insulting, myopic, short-sighted. Worse, it sets incredibly poor precedent for how we think about changes to Bitcoin and maintaining Bitcoin's culture of security and careful design. I'm gobsmacked that the conversation has reached this point, and am even more surprised that the response from the Bitcoin (technical) community hasn't been a more resounding and complete rejection of this narrative. Matt