Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D9AD1054 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 21:17:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vs1-f67.google.com (mail-vs1-f67.google.com [209.85.217.67]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3F581FB for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 21:17:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vs1-f67.google.com with SMTP id f20so2492287vsr.1 for ; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 13:17:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=nPNgeJI7ckHqcV1TkjxBhjTWlEg4jFhai7DATiZS2lk=; b=EeH+/TEQ3cTYLktU7YWHEJx9F0AHOF4fLCGlPmgG2WCuw4/wccxoy3hQQClyRnzMV9 +xEKjpBcSoABcPTP2Lx+uJnGvUp75ULj28Tli942BrjcpQcsSTjWyN058n+Smi5NJI5t o4kfAJT1CnFZD+eWuGTW+AZRT6foNT9njO8koof2WBovZvOdtCBftrUdCVQmJVeNhaO+ 3gfD17KzXoFG0bPCA06ltr2Kb3jU3KhJCw+hYBleu8mySnmxZ5cVYK1NCa77An0iCwhH yYEJz+2ytpH+hH3P56RpCzkaHFtQ8A1N5PxAlNZRRpvm2qXDmOTak1BjgNi5prgn8jnu p+3g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=nPNgeJI7ckHqcV1TkjxBhjTWlEg4jFhai7DATiZS2lk=; b=Rkv+LGAgZsRVrNtE0am8hVpYebULPdL3bsx2yPaEe3PpaB5ZEpvJ9I+6MVeyXUJUQe gwW15Yon4ApDqZvP1AyC9j1bNdO8Ub2xAZpRw522Ql0apXk/1Z45qOfajPSsW74LvdaU oGOUkBtVFcPCQC1C2+GHE6WxPZATuu3S6SHB/l3rrFvDjy7ViY1U64ls+gyOOTl0qyxJ mLRUy4ktbiSuZguw0FjNESyGhdBkZsVjYeYqML/PULYDm7YkBQWsOklm/fukkNCcueR0 6Fz1ZQ7C5aYSEdT2mYh9cg+FnT14lCjtudKxcgrZpJSU9sz14Kd4HKQcpTk1VhyqDcTZ BUIw== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAubzgelxLa9mAv1VJeMzh1U125h6OJR0Uq7LJKSbSCiAxVXnYOmR egS+81WX8CZ3yXvW7QC80WFIl2AUH0ltKW4g1Yo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IY25znVDSlMzjvZom9NqaE74WGOtg6hughw+nocypakCOEzHCKWz6uVdRTPMzNd8118VgyQDd/nQ2MHbSGtD6U= X-Received: by 2002:a67:76cf:: with SMTP id r198mr322985vsc.199.1549487850781; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 13:17:30 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <6D57649F-0236-4FBA-8376-4815F5F39E8A@gmail.com> <6D36035C-A675-4845-9292-3BC16CD19B41@gmail.com> <5A850549-B6C9-4590-BA9B-0D69BBE531F9@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Tamas Blummer Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 21:17:17 +0000 Message-ID: To: Gregory Maxwell Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ee02d40581404015" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 20:16:52 +0000 Cc: Jim Posen , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Interrogating a BIP157 server, BIP158 change proposal X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2019 21:17:32 -0000 --000000000000ee02d40581404015 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" The attack was in your implication that I would assume ill intent of those contributed to the proposal. That is not my position. I explained why, I think, rolling out a commitment could face opposition. This foreseable opposition, that must not come from you makes me prefer a provable uncommitted filter for now. I am myself concerned of the implications if many nodes would blindly follow POW. I did restart the discussion which I read and participated in at its first instance because implementing the current proposal taught me how problematic as is until not committed and because I have not seen a sign to assume commitment was imminent. This is not just missing code. AFAIK we do not even have a consensus on how any future soft fork would be activated. While trying to build a useful software I have to make assumtions on the timeline of dependencies and in my personal evaluation commitment is not yet to build on. I and others learned in this new discussion new arguments such as that of atomic swaps by Laolu. If nothing else, this was worth of learning. It appears me that it is rather you assuming ill intent on my side, which hurts given that I do contribute to the ecosystem since many years and have not ever been caught of hurting the project. Tamas Blummer On Wed, 6 Feb 2019, 20:16 Gregory Maxwell On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 7:48 PM Tamas Blummer > wrote: > > I do not think this ad hominem attack of you on me was justified. > > I apologize if I have offended you, but I am at a loss to find in my > words you found to be an attack. Can you help me out? > > On reread the only thing I'm saying is that you hadn't even read the > prior discussion. Am I mistaken? If so, why did you simply propose > reverting prior improvements without addressing the arguments given > the first time around or even acknowledging that you were rehashing an > old discussion? > --000000000000ee02d40581404015 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The attack was in your implication that I would assu= me=C2=A0 ill intent of those contributed to the proposal. That is not my po= sition. I explained why, I think, rolling out a commitment could face oppos= ition. This foreseable opposition, that must not come from you makes me pre= fer a provable uncommitted filter for now.

I am myself concerned of the implications if many nodes would = blindly follow POW.

I did restart the discussion which I read and = participated in at its first instance because implementing the current prop= osal taught me how problematic as is until not committed and because I have= not seen a sign to assume commitment was imminent.
=
This is not just missing code. AFAIK we do not = even have a consensus on how any future soft fork would be activated.=C2=A0=

While trying to build a= useful software I have to make assumtions on the timeline of dependencies = and in my personal evaluation commitment is not yet to build on.

I and others learned in this new d= iscussion new arguments such as that of atomic swaps by Laolu. If nothing e= lse, this was worth of learning.

It appears me that it is rather you assuming ill intent on my sid= e, which hurts given that I do contribute to the ecosystem since many years= and have not ever been caught of hurting the project.

Tamas Blummer


On Wed, 6 Feb 2019, 20:16 Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 7:48 PM Tamas Blummer <tamas.b= lummer@gmail.com> wrote:
> I do not think this ad hominem attack of you on me was justified.

I apologize if I have offended you, but I am at a loss to find in my
words you found to be an attack. Can you help me out?

On reread the only thing I'm saying is that you hadn't even read th= e
prior discussion. Am I mistaken?=C2=A0 If so, why did you simply propose reverting prior improvements without addressing the arguments given
the first time around or even acknowledging that you were rehashing an
old discussion?
--000000000000ee02d40581404015--