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
|
Return-Path: <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7B4CC002C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>)
id 1nhYGW-000A67-5j; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:58:40 +0000
Message-ID: <d95eec37-269d-eefb-d191-e8234e4faed3@mattcorallo.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 07:58:39 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: "David A. Harding" <dave@dtrt.org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <64a34b4d46461da322be51b53ec2eb01@dtrt.org>
From: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
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 <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: 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
|
