path: root/4d/48c32d6c022b2f207565d61403b0b40f6812fc

Return-Path: <fresheneesz@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5C9BC002F
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 21 Jan 2022 17:36:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B273C60F7C
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 21 Jan 2022 17:36:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
 DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
 HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
 SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 LY9eRPDhz93y
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 21 Jan 2022 17:36:32 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-ej1-x635.google.com (mail-ej1-x635.google.com
 [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::635])
 by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67E7260F7B
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 21 Jan 2022 17:36:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ej1-x635.google.com with SMTP id ah7so2028556ejc.4
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 21 Jan 2022 09:36:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112;
 h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
 :cc; bh=GSG8CJAVEAYydnT1+/8H+Sahwt5mvrDXNXsJ+ajcgwY=;
 b=eXO5wFjCAFrUDY/z+omTc70HXpUV9xJ14Qn3x5bezYk8ZxWFYYaO8otYWKs4z+6cVV
 A7680RnRNl8kxc7I5fX/gOwvbl+ytsR5KpBRO8DKygfsrLCUe5Ej0hQzmi8cLIhAJ0rx
 K8WFtt6CIQtatYjpIFpfHk/j0E91/Xt4KcSYHGdMV4Xu5vclnlCoKS/YF4x3ZNcVcrtE
 LIdVwLfqeofI5CO2ihVg5ve3ocDbf6tvco1bduIhOq8y/pjBGxZxJa84cOMzCBzm1oor
 EoRPgIBOGqtB2bRBA0CP8KNSW4Ku8lYHF5Ei91DLvnLVO2snf7pEBBm23cN112rAICcx
 s4mg==
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:cc;
 bh=GSG8CJAVEAYydnT1+/8H+Sahwt5mvrDXNXsJ+ajcgwY=;
 b=Sh9vnn47Hrjime26gtnqyYb3ZSs/1is57vK275yD90vZR4VnkD0t6lexqu7JkUvaV3
 H+FCtSe/m/mOouid9KJfpzoEsAT1xn+wyKgC10dUn/q9mekMtA16drsiCxVlTRHbzoTm
 ID2lmRE9mxsJENS+ehZ5tTVWa/b7jSpBBUduyack8YabXHezTyNnG1kV/z+zqSvb+asi
 W1JTbQDF6LX/YTBxgt4PhKY3kkb8u0+D9gZqCV1/lfQCEL5KungwsEHGgb8bvyJlKRc8
 KM/xuPgbLWYTkD6OyNuOsIKhGoZr7zIykqaw+Dr+L2IM8ZZgcQeexswR42yl9dVAmVYZ
 4Sng==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532ePYrSzFTtKp1FV+tA/Mw5t+koUtDwM9iou7yiZTWZ4JdSUSmg
 XjoAG+XUuqfKF5AHD1TN+oAlwQU4j3iMIYbcuXRL3JO8SAE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxJAr/jT4Q0CC2RfXASUaQtd5HR4NnsLFtDOAAjaC0Fk8kqxeKecdub8aHnRe8jMII7Soqj+gFUEHNP+JsHM18=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:9754:: with SMTP id
 o20mr4464972ejy.452.1642786590430; 
 Fri, 21 Jan 2022 09:36:30 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <202201182119.02687.luke@dashjr.org>
 <02cc01d80cb7$1339c050$39ad40f0$@voskuil.org>
 <202201182209.46044.luke@dashjr.org>
 <000601d80cbf$2f6a1d80$8e3e5880$@voskuil.org>
 <up51VtT2s-vcSvah3qiIm8G3KHjcnE5AwZLpTpe_CwRUgrWNJC8BvKFK0vHtYqzh1kTFtVVVLE0lXqBBBVhRR2Rkm3uFbp-Xmqs0KZ4gTUo=@protonmail.com>
 <CAGpPWDZiNiBoq9KNh8TsZC8fQTNsP5iVZnX2NHwN9x7dSPZmFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <017401d80e49$864fd550$92ef7ff0$@voskuil.org>
In-Reply-To: <017401d80e49$864fd550$92ef7ff0$@voskuil.org>
From: Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 11:36:13 -0600
Message-ID: <CAGpPWDa_A=DLW6cgGin0RjeQWOdDyhG8uz+3ZaegYyUFyp-=mw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002a25a105d61b0fcc"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 17:52:57 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV BIP review
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: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 17:36:34 -0000

--0000000000002a25a105d61b0fcc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

>  the **only** material distinction (and the one that we are discussing)
is activation with or without majority hash power support

I agree that characterization specifically is not moot. But its also
orthogonal to the topic of the CTV opcode itself.

On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 4:03 PM <eric@voskuil.org> wrote:

> > BIP8 is also BIP9 based, and ST is its own thing that's neither BIP8
> nor BIP9, so characterization one way or another is moot IMO.
>
>
>
> For a selective definition of =E2=80=9Cbased=E2=80=9D you can draw any co=
nclusion you
> desire. However I was very clear, as was Luke, and the history on this
> issue is equally clear, that the **only** material distinction (and the
> one that we are discussing) is activation with or without majority hash
> power support. BIP9/ST requires this support, BIP8 does not. The
> characterization is not moot. It is the central issue and always has been=
.
> There was no compromise on this question made in Taproot.
>
>
>
> e
>
>
>
> *From:* Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 20, 2022 7:23 AM
>
> Thank you Eric for pointing out the factual errors in LukeJr's mention an=
d
> implications around BIP8. The fact is that the ST pull request was
> described as "BIP9-based" <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21377>=
.
> TBH BIP8 is also BIP9 based, and ST is its own thing that's neither BIP8
> nor BIP9, so characterization one way or another is moot IMO. In any case=
,
> I also agree with Michael that this isn't the place to have a long
> discussion about activation method. That discussion should be kept
> separate. I'd go so far to say that BIPs should not advocate for any
> particular activation method, but should only go so far as to mention wha=
t
> types of activation methods are possible (if some types aren't possible f=
or
> some reason). Separation of concerns would be very useful on that front
> to reduce noise in conversations.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> BT
>
>
>

--0000000000002a25a105d61b0fcc
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">&gt;=C2=A0

<span style=3D"font-family:Calibri;font-size:14.6667px">the *</span><b styl=
e=3D"font-family:Calibri;font-size:14.6667px">only</b><span style=3D"font-f=
amily:Calibri;font-size:14.6667px">* material distinction (and the one that=
 we are discussing) is activation with or without majority hash power suppo=
rt</span><div><span style=3D"font-family:Calibri;font-size:14.6667px"><br><=
/span></div><div><span style=3D"font-family:Calibri;font-size:14.6667px">I =
agree that characterization specifically is not moot. But its also orthogon=
al to the topic of the CTV opcode itself.=C2=A0</span></div></div><br><div =
class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Thu, Jan 20,=
 2022 at 4:03 PM &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:eric@voskuil.org">eric@voskuil.org</=
a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0p=
x 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><d=
iv lang=3D"EN-US" style=3D"overflow-wrap: break-word;"><div class=3D"gmail-=
m_-8155759287084469276WordSection1"><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font size=3D"2"=
 face=3D"Calibri"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt">&gt; </span>BIP8 is also B=
IP9 based, and ST is its own thing that&#39;s neither BIP8 nor BIP9, so cha=
racterization one way or another is moot IMO.<u></u><u></u></font></p><p cl=
ass=3D"MsoNormal"><font size=3D"2" face=3D"Calibri"><span style=3D"font-siz=
e:11pt"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></font></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font =
size=3D"2" face=3D"Calibri"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt">For a selective =
definition of =E2=80=9Cbased=E2=80=9D you can draw any conclusion you desir=
e. However I was very clear, as was Luke, and the history on this issue is =
equally clear, that the *<b><span style=3D"font-weight:bold">only</span></b=
>* material distinction (and the one that we are discussing) is activation =
with or without majority hash power support. BIP9/ST requires this support,=
 BIP8 does not. The characterization is not moot. It is the central issue a=
nd always has been. There was no compromise on this question made in Taproo=
t.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font size=3D"2" f=
ace=3D"Calibri"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span><=
/font></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font size=3D"2" face=3D"Calibri"><span st=
yle=3D"font-size:11pt">e</span></font><u></u><u></u></p><p class=3D"MsoNorm=
al"><font size=3D"2" face=3D"Calibri"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt"><u></u=
>=C2=A0<u></u></span></font></p><div style=3D"border-top:none;border-right:=
none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1.5pt solid blue;padding:0in 0in 0in 4p=
t"><div><div><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><font size=3D"2" face=3D"Calibri"><s=
pan style=3D"font-size:11pt;font-weight:bold">From:</span></font></b> Billy=
 Tetrud &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:billy.tetrud@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">bil=
ly.tetrud@gmail.com</a>&gt; <br><b><span style=3D"font-weight:bold">Sent:</=
span></b> Thursday, January 20, 2022 7:23 AM<br><br><u></u><u></u></p></div=
><div><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font size=3D"2" face=3D"Calibri"><span style=
=3D"font-size:11pt">Thank you Eric for pointing out the factual errors in L=
ukeJr&#39;s mention and implications around BIP8. The fact is that the <a h=
ref=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21377" target=3D"_blank">ST =
pull request was described as &quot;BIP9-based&quot;</a>. TBH BIP8 is also =
BIP9 based, and ST is its own thing that&#39;s neither BIP8 nor BIP9, so ch=
aracterization one way or another is moot IMO. In any case, I also agree wi=
th Michael that this isn&#39;t the place to have a long discussion about ac=
tivation method. That discussion should be kept separate. I&#39;d go so far=
 to say that BIPs should not advocate for any particular activation method,=
 but should only go so far as to mention what types of activation methods a=
re possible (if some types aren&#39;t possible for some reason). Separation=
 of concerns would be very useful on that front to=C2=A0reduce noise in con=
versations.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p></div><div><p class=3D"MsoNormal=
"><font size=3D"2" face=3D"Calibri"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt"><u></u>=
=C2=A0<u></u></span></font></p></div><div><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font size=
=3D"2" face=3D"Calibri"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt">Thanks,<u></u><u></u=
></span></font></p></div><div><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font size=3D"2" face=
=3D"Calibri"><span style=3D"font-size:11pt">BT<u></u><u></u></span></font><=
/p></div><div><p class=3D"MsoNormal"><font size=3D"2" face=3D"Calibri"><spa=
n style=3D"font-size:11pt"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></font></p></div></di=
v></div></div></div></blockquote></div>

--0000000000002a25a105d61b0fcc--