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"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] What to do when contentious soft fork activations
 are attempted
Precedence: list

--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>&gt; 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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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--