summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/29/0c6bf4d39966876303f5c2dcb2ede6cd7d174d
blob: d438915da4b7ef4f60e89b4fdf0c876a78237e77 (plain)
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
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
Return-Path: <john@synonym.to>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 725CCC002D
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon,  2 May 2022 08:37:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46CDB40241
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon,  2 May 2022 08:37:44 +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: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=synonym-to.20210112.gappssmtp.com
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id vfPp4tQAyg07
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon,  2 May 2022 08:37:41 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-pf1-x435.google.com (mail-pf1-x435.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::435])
 by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF61940220
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon,  2 May 2022 08:37:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pf1-x435.google.com with SMTP id j6so11755607pfe.13
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 02 May 2022 01:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=synonym-to.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112;
 h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
 bh=HltZYmB5lAnG5xzyzVe9skF3dmA1W7rY/OIGIrObPdo=;
 b=MMk0hJh+om38XT8aXHmTcnk8Lb868dpaJWk5GQu1a8SCbBGp3Xw4f3nUtm7qwSvwos
 PKzOZDfp6aYrymjpmL0Zx37LlWudBdlIlErywM0FWVWS8JMF1Cr+w5NS4iPf7OTULJJZ
 bjz2JPkZDp38KeFUiHMfKLs2aS25WSe6LKmAKW+WtYX5pqYNb/a0Ktm/kcEpYxlpfgYX
 Ty/j7cj9wGAGkIVLghtiIHea8vheG2rCajh8dpuFQJvr1LiWBPkRj8BDtXDFGcKiZG75
 UiV7lvvkPr/AAChI1gUg33yfWN7oemhmlotaTLuunwjgPvOObo85BEzVL6e+/HVrWZ9F
 iHbg==
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;
 bh=HltZYmB5lAnG5xzyzVe9skF3dmA1W7rY/OIGIrObPdo=;
 b=Jk4iSzIJc/V+GwinCInNAnHkRCPFV8o2aLRoXCNdZbMi/71tvZZKdJ6xX1PZk3xRbA
 HyvaE+/mlbZf186Rp4NEl4lwTOepuqR746d2w8xlKM2PF7ZHuk+mb50SBjKO14TLo7+A
 vxvCmBBYnyAbT9I+t4EVJKJ6vuJClvwVRIGrvHwdfiHdlA8EAlEWVMgmr0iB8DGuWLM/
 xdUjdM/fv5r6DsrCpHinGUXrxnQQGW1Bc1BxtqDsCbbCvj9TAp5qKOHRjYp84d2OK8ZJ
 Nonu0KRknP4IVJWM1tKm60ASglOC73+AIv7mcrLNkJ2mOIsmLTimMhsog1n7wm27fmAF
 +7vA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5334yenRl27HCc5N4IJIUfO0HWEkNk92JlXH+AMe+DHeNmqJwZM0
 Ok42C5Xg3iMu4q9PtKZb5Oom8czk0lAT1Bws+f4sovQGp48=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzoONQSJ1pIwmEAISeKSUOs7uCUP6TKWrWP3dUOMouksgul7mqhlc1MHwmai0xxrTeqqy+k+7f8ApPzZkj1fy8=
X-Received: by 2002:a63:4004:0:b0:39d:8634:fff2 with SMTP id
 n4-20020a634004000000b0039d8634fff2mr8850759pga.28.1651480660749; Mon, 02 May
 2022 01:37:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <mailman.51682.1651459425.8511.bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.51682.1651459425.8511.bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: John Carvalho <john@synonym.to>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 09:37:29 +0100
Message-ID: <CAHTn92z3HaTu47O_3metXAhFEVN3QnLdug1BVt66a9GZGx6t=Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000023424605de034e19"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 02 May 2022 08:56:12 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Working Towards Consensus
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: Mon, 02 May 2022 08:37:44 -0000

--00000000000023424605de034e19
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Jeremy,

The path to consensus is to propose things that everyone needs. Demand
comes from the market, not the designers.

Designers (engineers) solve problems with designs, but when they speculate
and lead the process, they create problems instead. Bitcoin is not a place
for speculative feature additions. Bitcoin cannot afford a culture of
additive features no one is asking for. Bitcoin thrives in a culture of
"NO." Rejection of change is Bitcoin's primary feature.

There is NO HOPE of EVER getting the majority of Bitcoin users to be able
to grasp, audit, and meaningfully consent to complicated new features, nor
to assess how they may interact with existing features in undesirable ways
or affect Bitcoin's incentive structure. To ignore this is a selfish
egomania that too many devs succumb to. The public already trusts Core devs
more than they probably should, and it is unwise to lean on that trust.

You are of course welcome to try and research and document all of the
details about how this plays out in practice, but you will fail to specify
a path to approval or any sort of clear governance structure for ensuring
that speculative features get into Bitcoin. You will seek and only see a
bias that allows you to get what YOU want. Until you focus on what everyone
wants, you will not reach consensus on anything.

Bitcoin changes should solve obvious problems and provide easy wins on
optimization, security, and privacy. Seek simplicity and efficiency, not
complication.

We have yet to saturate usage of the features we have added already in the
past 5 years. Use those. It is becoming apparent over time that many
features can be accomplished off-chain, or without a blockchain, or by
merely anchoring into currently available bitcoin transaction types.

There is simply no urgency or problem that any of the proposed soft fork
features are trying to address. This includes APO, CTV, sidechain
proposals, etc, etc.

Your aggression to your purpose is the antithesis of consensus, as it
indicates your incentives are external to it.

--
John Carvalho
CEO, Synonym.to <http://synonym.to/>


On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 3:43 AM <
bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Send bitcoin-dev mailing list submissions to
>         bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         bitcoin-dev-owner@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of bitcoin-dev digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: What to do when contentious soft fork activations are
>       attempted (Billy Tetrud)
>    2. Working Towards Consensus (Jeremy Rubin)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 14:14:29 -0500
> From: Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.com>
> To: alicexbt <alicexbt@protonmail.com>,  Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
>         <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] What to do when contentious soft fork
>         activations are attempted
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAGpPWDb-T4OB0NKv7O5k9yhDQJtmag1QLqM1jJN9fQMoNTPLug@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> +1 alicexbt
>
> We of course want knowledgeable bitcoiners who aren't knowledgeable about a
> certain proposal to be skeptical. But what we don't want is for that
> natural skepticism-from-ignorance to be interpreted as opposition, or
> really a strong signal of any kind. Any thoughts from ignorance, whether
> self-aware or not, should be given small weight. It seems the vast majority
> of push back has been this kind of skepticism from ignorance. And to a
> certain degree I think we want to give time for understanding to those who
> have not participated in the first, second, third, etc round of discussion
> on a proposal. It may not be reasonable to say "you had the last 2 years of
> time to voice your concern".
>
> Now that CTV is being taken seriously as a proposal, we probably should
> give the community who is finally taking a serious look at it time to
> understand, get their questions answered, and come to terms with it. This
> is not to say that CTV as a technology or proposal has been rushed, or has
> not had enough work put into it, but rather that the community as a whole
> has not paid enough attention to it for long enough.
>
> The wrong approach is: "how do I yell more loudly next time I see something
> I'm uncomfortable with?" The right approach is to educate those who aren't
> educated on the proposal and gather consensus on what people think when
> they understand enough about it to contribute to that consensus. If you
> care about consensus, you should respect the consensus process and be ok
> with consensus being not your preferred outcome. If you don't care about
> consensus, then you're basically attacking the bitcoin community.
>
> On Sun, May 1, 2022 at 3:22 AM 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,
> Jimmy
> > 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/019535.html
> >,
> > 2
> > <
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-January/019728.html
> >,
> > 3
> > <
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020235.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.
> >
> >
> > Answering the subject of this email: "What to do when contentious soft
> > forks activations are attempted?"
> >
> > - Do not consider something contentious because someone said it on
> mailing
> > list
> > - Do not spread misinformation
> > - Read all posts in detail with different opinions
> > - Avoid personal attacks
> > - Look at the technical details, code etc. and comment on things that
> > could be improved
> >
> >
> >
> > /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?ve 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
> contentious
> > 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?t want to repeat this exercise again I thought I should at least
> 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
> yet
> > 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,
> Jimmy
> > 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/019535.html
> >,
> > 2
> > <
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-January/019728.html
> >,
> > 3
> > <
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020235.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?m unsure on the above. I?d be interested to hear thoughts. What I am
> > sure of is that it is totally unacceptable for one individual 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?re motivated to try it again every week/month. Perhaps the
> > personal cost that the community is now prepared if that individual tries
> > it again is sufficient. I?m not sure. Obviously Bitcoin is a
> permissionless
> > network, Bitcoin Core and other open source projects are easily forked
> and
> > no authority (I?m certainly no authority) can stop things like this
> > happening again.
> >
> > I?ll follow the responses if people have thoughts (I won't be responding
> > to the instigators of this contentious soft fork activation attempt) but
> > other than that I?d like to move on to other things than contentious soft
> > fork activations. Thanks to those who have expressed concerns publicly
> (too
> > many to name, Bob McElrath was often wording arguments better than I
> could)
> > and who were willing to engage with the URSF conversation. If an
> individual
> > 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
> stand
> > 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
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220501/7158d8ed/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 19:43:29 -0700
> From: Jeremy Rubin <jeremy.l.rubin@gmail.com>
> To: Bitcoin development mailing list
>         <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Working Towards Consensus
> Message-ID:
>         <CAD5xwhhdEgADWwLwbjRKp-UFCw9hHjDsc-L=pkiwW=
> bmhFqBNw@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Developers,
>
> There is much to say about the events of the last two weeks and the
> response to them. I've been searching for the right words to share here,
> but I think it best that short of a more thoughtful writeup I start with a
> timely small step with the below comments.
>
> First, let me be clear: I am not advancing a Speedy Trial(ST) activation of
> Bitcoin Improvement Proposal-119 (BIP-119) CheckTemplateVerify (CTV) at
> this time.
>
> I'm skipping any discussion of the drama here. Most of you are interested
> in developing Bitcoin, not drama. Let's try to keep this thread focused on
> the actual work. I'll make some limited comments on the drama in a separate
> thread, for those who care to hear from me on the subject directly.
>
> I believe that the disinformation spread around my post ("7 Theses on a
> next step for BIP-119"[0]) created three main negative outcomes within the
> Bitcoin community:
>
> 1. Confusion about how Bitcoin's "technical consensus" works and how
> changes are "approved".
> 2. Fear about the safety of CTV and covenants more broadly.
> 3. Misunderstandings around the properties of Speedy Trial, User Activated
> Soft Fork (UASF), User Resisted Soft Fork (URSF), Soft Forks, Hard Forks,
> and more.
>
> While I cannot take responsibility for the spread of the disinformation, I
> do apologize to anyone dealing with it for the role my actions have had in
> leading to the current circumstance.
>
> I personally take some solace in knowing that the only way out of this is
> through it. The conversations happening now seem to have been more or less
> inevitable, this has brought them to the surface, and as a technical
> community we are able to address them head on if -- as individuals and
> collectively -- we choose to. And, viewed through a certain lens, these
> conversations represent incredibly important opportunities to participate
> in defining the future of Bitcoin that would not be happening otherwise.
> Ultimately, I am grateful to live in a time where I am able to play a small
> role in such an important process. This is the work.
>
> In the coming months, I expect the discourse to be messy, but I think the
> work is clear cut that we should undertake at least the following:
>
> 1. Make great efforts to better document how Bitcoin's technical consensus
> process works today, how it can be improved, and how changes may be
> formally reviewed while still being unofficially advanced.
> 2. Work diligently to address the concerns many in the community have
> around the negative potential of covenants and better explain the
> trade-offs between levels of functionality.
> 3. Renew conversations about activation and release mechanisms and
> re-examine our priors around why Speedy Trial may have been acceptable for
> Taproot, was not acceptable for BIP-119, but may not be optimal long
> term[1], and work towards processes that better captures the Bitcoin
> network's diverse interests and requirements.
> 4. Work towards thoroughly systematizing knowledge around covenant
> technologies so that in the coming months we may work towards delivering a
> coherent pathway for the Bitcoin technical community to evaluate and put up
> for offer to the broader community an upgrade or set of upgrades to improve
> Bitcoin's capabilities for self sovereignty, privacy, scalability, and
> decentralization.
>
> This may not be the easiest path to take, but I believe that this work is
> critical to the future of Bitcoin. I welcome all reading this to share your
> thoughts with this list on how we might work towards consensus going
> forward, including any criticisms of my observations and recommendations
> above. While I would expect nothing less than passionate debate when it
> comes to Bitcoin, remember that at the end of the day we all largely share
> a mission to make the world a freer place, even if we disagree about how we
> get there.
>
> Yours truly,
>
> Jeremy
>
> [0]: https://rubin.io/bitcoin/2022/04/17/next-steps-bip119/
> [1]: http://r6.ca/blog/20210615T191422Z.html I quite enjoyed Roconnor's
> detailed post on Speedy Trial
>
> --
> @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220501/9009e65d/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 84, Issue 4
> ******************************************
>

--00000000000023424605de034e19
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr">Jeremy,</div><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><=
div dir=3D"ltr">The path to consensus is to propose things that everyone ne=
eds. Demand comes from the market, not the designers.=C2=A0</div><div dir=
=3D"ltr"><br></div><div dir=3D"ltr">Designers (engineers) solve problems wi=
th designs, but when they speculate and lead the=C2=A0process, they create =
problems instead. Bitcoin is not a place for speculative feature additions.=
 Bitcoin cannot afford a culture of additive features no one is asking for.=
 Bitcoin thrives in a culture of &quot;NO.&quot; Rejection of change is Bit=
coin&#39;s primary feature.</div><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><div>There is N=
O HOPE of EVER getting=C2=A0the majority of Bitcoin users to be able to gra=
sp, audit, and meaningfully consent to complicated new features, nor to ass=
ess=C2=A0how they may interact with existing features in undesirable ways o=
r affect Bitcoin&#39;s incentive structure. To ignore this is a selfish ego=
mania that too many devs succumb to. The public already trusts Core devs mo=
re than they probably should, and it is unwise to lean on that trust.</div>=
<div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><div>You are of course welcome to try and resear=
ch and document all of the details about how this plays out in practice, bu=
t you will fail to specify a path to approval or any sort of clear governan=
ce structure for ensuring that speculative features get into Bitcoin. You w=
ill seek and only see a bias that allows you to get what YOU want. Until yo=
u focus=C2=A0on what everyone wants, you will not reach consensus on anythi=
ng.</div><div><br></div><div>Bitcoin changes should=C2=A0solve obvious prob=
lems=C2=A0and provide easy wins on optimization, security, and privacy. See=
k simplicity and efficiency, not complication.</div><div><br></div><div>We =
have yet to saturate usage of the features we have added already in the pas=
t 5 years. Use those. It is becoming apparent over time that many features =
can be accomplished off-chain, or without a blockchain, or by merely anchor=
ing into currently available bitcoin transaction types.</div><div><br></div=
><div>There is simply no urgency or problem that any of the proposed soft f=
ork features are trying to address. This includes APO, CTV, sidechain propo=
sals, etc, etc.</div><div><br></div><div>Your aggression to your purpose is=
 the antithesis of consensus, as it indicates your incentives are external =
to it.</div><div dir=3D"ltr"><br clear=3D"all"><div><div dir=3D"ltr" class=
=3D"gmail_signature" data-smartmail=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr"><s=
pan style=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34)">--</span><br style=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34)=
"><div dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"color:rgb(34,34,34)"><div dir=3D"ltr">John Carv=
alho</div><div dir=3D"ltr">CEO,=C2=A0<a href=3D"http://synonym.to/" style=
=3D"color:rgb(17,85,204)" target=3D"_blank">Synonym.to</a><br><div><font si=
ze=3D"1"><br></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br><div clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Mon, May 2, 2022=
 at 3:43 AM &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation=
.org">bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div=
><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border=
-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Send bitcoin-dev mailing=
 list submissions to<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda=
tion.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/ma=
ilman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://li=
sts.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body &#39;help&#39; to<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.lin=
uxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundati=
on.org</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev-owner@lists.linux=
foundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev-owner@lists.linuxfoundation.o=
rg</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than &quot;Re: Contents of bitcoin-dev digest...&quot;<br>
<br>
<br>
Today&#39;s Topics:<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A01. Re: What to do when contentious soft fork activations are<b=
r>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 attempted (Billy Tetrud)<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A02. Working Towards Consensus (Jeremy Rubin)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 14:14:29 -0500<br>
From: Billy Tetrud &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:billy.tetrud@gmail.com" target=3D"=
_blank">billy.tetrud@gmail.com</a>&gt;<br>
To: alicexbt &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:alicexbt@protonmail.com" target=3D"_blan=
k">alicexbt@protonmail.com</a>&gt;,=C2=A0 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfo=
undation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&g=
t;<br>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] What to do when contentious soft fork<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 activations are attempted<br>
Message-ID:<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:CAGpPWDb-T4OB0NKv7O5k9yhD=
QJtmag1QLqM1jJN9fQMoNTPLug@mail.gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">CAGpPWDb-T4OB0=
NKv7O5k9yhDQJtmag1QLqM1jJN9fQMoNTPLug@mail.gmail.com</a>&gt;<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D&quot;utf-8&quot;<br>
<br>
+1 alicexbt<br>
<br>
We of course want knowledgeable bitcoiners who aren&#39;t knowledgeable abo=
ut a<br>
certain proposal to be skeptical. But what we don&#39;t want is for that<br=
>
natural skepticism-from-ignorance to be interpreted as opposition, or<br>
really a strong signal of any kind. Any thoughts from ignorance, whether<br=
>
self-aware or not, should be given small weight. It seems the vast majority=
<br>
of push back has been this kind of skepticism from ignorance. And to a<br>
certain degree I think we want to give time for understanding to those who<=
br>
have not participated in the first, second, third, etc round of discussion<=
br>
on a proposal. It may not be reasonable to say &quot;you had the last 2 yea=
rs of<br>
time to voice your concern&quot;.<br>
<br>
Now that CTV is being taken seriously as a proposal, we probably should<br>
give the community who is finally taking a serious look at it time to<br>
understand, get their questions answered, and come to terms with it. This<b=
r>
is not to say that CTV as a technology or proposal has been rushed, or has<=
br>
not had enough work put into it, but rather that the community as a whole<b=
r>
has not paid enough attention to it for long enough.<br>
<br>
The wrong approach is: &quot;how do I yell more loudly next time I see some=
thing<br>
I&#39;m uncomfortable with?&quot; The right approach is to educate those wh=
o aren&#39;t<br>
educated on the proposal and gather consensus on what people think when<br>
they understand enough about it to contribute to that consensus. If you<br>
care about consensus, you should respect the consensus process and be ok<br=
>
with consensus being not your preferred outcome. If you don&#39;t care abou=
t<br>
consensus, then you&#39;re basically attacking the bitcoin community.<br>
<br>
On Sun, May 1, 2022 at 3:22 AM alicexbt via bitcoin-dev &lt;<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
<br>
&gt; Hi Michael,<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Maybe the whole thing worked as designed. Some users identified what w=
as<br>
&gt; going on, well known Bitcoin educators such as Andreas Antonopoulos, J=
immy<br>
&gt; Song etc brought additional attention to the dangers, a URSF movement<=
br>
&gt; started to gain momentum and those attempting a contentious soft fork<=
br>
&gt; activation backed off. (Disappointingly Bitcoin Optech didn&#39;t cove=
r my<br>
&gt; previous posts to this mailing list 1<br>
&gt; &lt;<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev=
/2021-October/019535.html" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lis=
ts.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-October/019535.html</a>&g=
t;,<br>
&gt; 2<br>
&gt; &lt;<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev=
/2022-January/019728.html" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lis=
ts.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-January/019728.html</a>&g=
t;,<br>
&gt; 3<br>
&gt; &lt;<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev=
/2022-April/020235.html" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists=
.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020235.html</a>&gt;<b=
r>
&gt; highlighting the dangers many months ago or recent posts. Normally Opt=
ech<br>
&gt; is very high signal.)<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Some users have been misled and there is nothing great being achieved =
by<br>
&gt; doing this on social media. Andreas is clueless about BIP 119 and othe=
r<br>
&gt; covenant proposals. He is spreading misinformation and some of the URS=
F<br>
&gt; enthusiasts do not understand what are they even opposing or going to =
run<br>
&gt; with risks involved.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Answering the subject of this email: &quot;What to do when contentious=
 soft<br>
&gt; forks activations are attempted?&quot;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; - Do not consider something contentious because someone said it on mai=
ling<br>
&gt; list<br>
&gt; - Do not spread misinformation<br>
&gt; - Read all posts in detail with different opinions<br>
&gt; - Avoid personal attacks<br>
&gt; - Look at the technical details, code etc. and comment on things that<=
br>
&gt; could be improved<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; /dev/fd0<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Sent with ProtonMail &lt;<a href=3D"https://protonmail.com/" rel=3D"no=
referrer" target=3D"_blank">https://protonmail.com/</a>&gt; secure email.<b=
r>
&gt;<br>
&gt; ------- Original Message -------<br>
&gt; On Saturday, April 30th, 2022 at 3:23 PM, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-=
dev<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_bl=
ank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a> wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I?ve been in two minds on whether to completely move on to other topic=
s or<br>
&gt; to formulate some thoughts on the recent attempt to activate a content=
ious<br>
&gt; soft fork. In the interests of those of us who have wasted<br>
&gt; days/weeks/months of our time on this (with no personal upside) and wh=
o<br>
&gt; don?t want to repeat this exercise again I thought I should at least r=
aise<br>
&gt; the issue for discussion of what should be done differently if this is=
<br>
&gt; tried again in future.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; This could be Jeremy with OP_CTV at a later point (assuming it is stil=
l<br>
&gt; contentious) or anyone who wants to pick up a single opcode that is no=
t yet<br>
&gt; activated on Bitcoin and try to get miners to signal for it bypassing<=
br>
&gt; technical concerns from many developers, bypassing Bitcoin Core and<br=
>
&gt; bypassing users.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Maybe the whole thing worked as designed. Some users identified what w=
as<br>
&gt; going on, well known Bitcoin educators such as Andreas Antonopoulos, J=
immy<br>
&gt; Song etc brought additional attention to the dangers, a URSF movement<=
br>
&gt; started to gain momentum and those attempting a contentious soft fork<=
br>
&gt; activation backed off. (Disappointingly Bitcoin Optech didn&#39;t cove=
r my<br>
&gt; previous posts to this mailing list 1<br>
&gt; &lt;<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev=
/2021-October/019535.html" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lis=
ts.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-October/019535.html</a>&g=
t;,<br>
&gt; 2<br>
&gt; &lt;<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev=
/2022-January/019728.html" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lis=
ts.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-January/019728.html</a>&g=
t;,<br>
&gt; 3<br>
&gt; &lt;<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev=
/2022-April/020235.html" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists=
.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020235.html</a>&gt;<b=
r>
&gt; highlighting the dangers many months ago or recent posts. Normally Opt=
ech<br>
&gt; is very high signal.)<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Alternatively this was the first time a contentious soft fork activati=
on<br>
&gt; was attempted, we were all woefully unprepared for it and none of us k=
new<br>
&gt; what we were doing.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I?m unsure on the above. I?d be interested to hear thoughts. What I am=
<br>
&gt; sure of is that it is totally unacceptable for one individual to bring=
 the<br>
&gt; entire Bitcoin network to the brink of a chain split. There has to be =
a<br>
&gt; personal cost to that individual dissuading them from trying it again<=
br>
&gt; otherwise they?re motivated to try it again every week/month. Perhaps =
the<br>
&gt; personal cost that the community is now prepared if that individual tr=
ies<br>
&gt; it again is sufficient. I?m not sure. Obviously Bitcoin is a permissio=
nless<br>
&gt; network, Bitcoin Core and other open source projects are easily forked=
 and<br>
&gt; no authority (I?m certainly no authority) can stop things like this<br=
>
&gt; happening again.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I?ll follow the responses if people have thoughts (I won&#39;t be resp=
onding<br>
&gt; to the instigators of this contentious soft fork activation attempt) b=
ut<br>
&gt; other than that I?d like to move on to other things than contentious s=
oft<br>
&gt; fork activations. Thanks to those who have expressed concerns publicly=
 (too<br>
&gt; many to name, Bob McElrath was often wording arguments better than I c=
ould)<br>
&gt; and who were willing to engage with the URSF conversation. If an indiv=
idual<br>
&gt; can go directly to miners to get soft forks activated bypassing techni=
cal<br>
&gt; concerns from many developers, bypassing Bitcoin Core and bypassing us=
ers<br>
&gt; Bitcoin is fundamentally broken. The reason I still have hope that it =
isn&#39;t<br>
&gt; is that during a period of general apathy some people were willing to =
stand<br>
&gt; up and actively resist it.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; --<br>
&gt; Michael Folkson<br>
&gt; Email: michaelfolkson at <a href=3D"http://protonmail.com" rel=3D"nore=
ferrer" target=3D"_blank">protonmail.com</a><br>
&gt; Keybase: michaelfolkson<br>
&gt; PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_bl=
ank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
&gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-=
dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
&gt;<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: &lt;<a href=3D"http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/=
attachments/20220501/7158d8ed/attachment-0001.html" rel=3D"noreferrer" targ=
et=3D"_blank">http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attach=
ments/20220501/7158d8ed/attachment-0001.html</a>&gt;<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 19:43:29 -0700<br>
From: Jeremy Rubin &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jeremy.l.rubin@gmail.com" target=
=3D"_blank">jeremy.l.rubin@gmail.com</a>&gt;<br>
To: Bitcoin development mailing list<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfo=
undation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&g=
t;<br>
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Working Towards Consensus<br>
Message-ID:<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 &lt;CAD5xwhhdEgADWwLwbjRKp-UFCw9hHjDsc-L=3Dpkiw=
W=3D<a href=3D"mailto:bmhFqBNw@mail.gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">bmhFqBNw@m=
ail.gmail.com</a>&gt;<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D&quot;utf-8&quot;<br>
<br>
Developers,<br>
<br>
There is much to say about the events of the last two weeks and the<br>
response to them. I&#39;ve been searching for the right words to share here=
,<br>
but I think it best that short of a more thoughtful writeup I start with a<=
br>
timely small step with the below comments.<br>
<br>
First, let me be clear: I am not advancing a Speedy Trial(ST) activation of=
<br>
Bitcoin Improvement Proposal-119 (BIP-119) CheckTemplateVerify (CTV) at<br>
this time.<br>
<br>
I&#39;m skipping any discussion of the drama here. Most of you are interest=
ed<br>
in developing Bitcoin, not drama. Let&#39;s try to keep this thread focused=
 on<br>
the actual work. I&#39;ll make some limited comments on the drama in a sepa=
rate<br>
thread, for those who care to hear from me on the subject directly.<br>
<br>
I believe that the disinformation spread around my post (&quot;7 Theses on =
a<br>
next step for BIP-119&quot;[0]) created three main negative outcomes within=
 the<br>
Bitcoin community:<br>
<br>
1. Confusion about how Bitcoin&#39;s &quot;technical consensus&quot; works =
and how<br>
changes are &quot;approved&quot;.<br>
2. Fear about the safety of CTV and covenants more broadly.<br>
3. Misunderstandings around the properties of Speedy Trial, User Activated<=
br>
Soft Fork (UASF), User Resisted Soft Fork (URSF), Soft Forks, Hard Forks,<b=
r>
and more.<br>
<br>
While I cannot take responsibility for the spread of the disinformation, I<=
br>
do apologize to anyone dealing with it for the role my actions have had in<=
br>
leading to the current circumstance.<br>
<br>
I personally take some solace in knowing that the only way out of this is<b=
r>
through it. The conversations happening now seem to have been more or less<=
br>
inevitable, this has brought them to the surface, and as a technical<br>
community we are able to address them head on if -- as individuals and<br>
collectively -- we choose to. And, viewed through a certain lens, these<br>
conversations represent incredibly important opportunities to participate<b=
r>
in defining the future of Bitcoin that would not be happening otherwise.<br=
>
Ultimately, I am grateful to live in a time where I am able to play a small=
<br>
role in such an important process. This is the work.<br>
<br>
In the coming months, I expect the discourse to be messy, but I think the<b=
r>
work is clear cut that we should undertake at least the following:<br>
<br>
1. Make great efforts to better document how Bitcoin&#39;s technical consen=
sus<br>
process works today, how it can be improved, and how changes may be<br>
formally reviewed while still being unofficially advanced.<br>
2. Work diligently to address the concerns many in the community have<br>
around the negative potential of covenants and better explain the<br>
trade-offs between levels of functionality.<br>
3. Renew conversations about activation and release mechanisms and<br>
re-examine our priors around why Speedy Trial may have been acceptable for<=
br>
Taproot, was not acceptable for BIP-119, but may not be optimal long<br>
term[1], and work towards processes that better captures the Bitcoin<br>
network&#39;s diverse interests and requirements.<br>
4. Work towards thoroughly systematizing knowledge around covenant<br>
technologies so that in the coming months we may work towards delivering a<=
br>
coherent pathway for the Bitcoin technical community to evaluate and put up=
<br>
for offer to the broader community an upgrade or set of upgrades to improve=
<br>
Bitcoin&#39;s capabilities for self sovereignty, privacy, scalability, and<=
br>
decentralization.<br>
<br>
This may not be the easiest path to take, but I believe that this work is<b=
r>
critical to the future of Bitcoin. I welcome all reading this to share your=
<br>
thoughts with this list on how we might work towards consensus going<br>
forward, including any criticisms of my observations and recommendations<br=
>
above. While I would expect nothing less than passionate debate when it<br>
comes to Bitcoin, remember that at the end of the day we all largely share<=
br>
a mission to make the world a freer place, even if we disagree about how we=
<br>
get there.<br>
<br>
Yours truly,<br>
<br>
Jeremy<br>
<br>
[0]: <a href=3D"https://rubin.io/bitcoin/2022/04/17/next-steps-bip119/" rel=
=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://rubin.io/bitcoin/2022/04/17/next-=
steps-bip119/</a><br>
[1]: <a href=3D"http://r6.ca/blog/20210615T191422Z.html" rel=3D"noreferrer"=
 target=3D"_blank">http://r6.ca/blog/20210615T191422Z.html</a> I quite enjo=
yed Roconnor&#39;s<br>
detailed post on Speedy Trial<br>
<br>
--<br>
@JeremyRubin &lt;<a href=3D"https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin" rel=3D"norefer=
rer" target=3D"_blank">https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin</a>&gt;<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: &lt;<a href=3D"http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/=
attachments/20220501/9009e65d/attachment.html" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D=
"_blank">http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments=
/20220501/9009e65d/attachment.html</a>&gt;<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Subject: Digest Footer<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
End of bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 84, Issue 4<br>
******************************************<br>
</blockquote></div></div>

--00000000000023424605de034e19--