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
|
Return-Path: <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3CA0C002D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 16 Sep 2022 17:06:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8F2E41B87
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 16 Sep 2022 17:06:54 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org A8F2E41B87
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org;
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mattcorallo.com header.i=@mattcorallo.com
header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=1663346462 header.b=Q0YQUDKM;
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=clients.mail.as397444.net
header.i=@clients.mail.as397444.net header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=1663346463
header.b=XR6WxZbX
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.102
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.102 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, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001,
SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id KJpYnKTS8XO4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 16 Sep 2022 17:06:53 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: delayed 00:19:50 by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org EA34741B75
Received: from mail.as397444.net (mail.as397444.net [69.59.18.99])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA34741B75
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 16 Sep 2022 17:06:52 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=mattcorallo.com; s=1663346462; h=In-Reply-To:From:References:To:Subject:
From:Subject:To:Cc:Cc:Reply-To;
bh=D0gjBJxJ5xpQnR1SJb6fgwq6yyXsYgOQueKM+ASjZyI=; b=Q0YQUDKMzaesa4/EQCyKe3jJeX
LBLynuJOR9LCeCDQJrqOGgraGNzD3nVrYlVeqfAyKM4PiUw6QrVCxymFUYUFkiDN98rfv2ZUh0I/R
NPatLL29jErMAhn66oB4URFELtzjw7akpMjL7dpV3ASy6oTwmT1HAWrINz4nTBoxfwXiLoQGrcIvb
grKXvsNOzettaJpG/hHJ9cxXaCFSKCNfFhKhJTXt1BBJFo4kH6vfHvh+FOklUlZ4OLhj1M7nM8DPT
FzwWBeNnfAFEHuXZP+YBK/uNpnTFa4/edvhCssCwUZmjfjrEQpY1/lylYgZMUS+FBIGN8n4O/Pa1F
NwIinp8A==;
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=clients.mail.as397444.net; s=1663346463; h=In-Reply-To:From:References:To:
Subject:From:Subject:To:Cc:Cc:Reply-To;
bh=D0gjBJxJ5xpQnR1SJb6fgwq6yyXsYgOQueKM+ASjZyI=; b=XR6WxZbXis8SrBgSP77f9M4DMY
x5q2E+/jlgHSsZ8A9DPqcbkCqbvY82y/JYXNqNYTQrFJwSAtm+Nj47LWNqYsBwHaufkh/NY9OtOEo
YDLC99cvjHtLVKWV9W8pMIg4w2GW73SJZAkAbb/6XvMdLJAulwIfk43upTm5s8izHcZrKRquJiYCg
uaK7popvPHqHy3qtm0Yfd0/euKo7bDiZVu63QJqlYuqNkOFz/OLraQlRcp/s0hXN+GXFdie4A4XtI
LvT6YSz35pHYaikesGrOtdQ2nr+0JwwG20M3En/7Qjv1adkjkKgEBcbZDE791jD2N9Y1QIGYtBF4V
VtUc/bYQ==;
Received: by mail.as397444.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) (Exim)
(envelope-from <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>) id 1oZEUT-003mbQ-1w;
Fri, 16 Sep 2022 16:46:57 +0000
Message-ID: <798e8c4a-78e2-b210-2202-4b358b95a581@mattcorallo.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2022 12:46:53 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <YyQioS3F942wu1HW@erisian.com.au>
From: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
In-Reply-To: <YyQioS3F942wu1HW@erisian.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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] bitcoin-inquistion: evaluating soft forks on
signet
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, 16 Sep 2022 17:06:55 -0000
Apologies for any typos, somewhat jet-lagged atm.
On 9/16/22 3:15 AM, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Subhead: "Nobody expects a Bitcoin Inquistion? C'mon man, *everyone*
> expects a Bitcoin Inquisition."
>
> As we've seen from the attempt at a CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY activation earlier
> in the year [0], the question of "how to successfully get soft fork
> ideas from concept to deployment" doesn't really have a good answer today.
I strongly disagree with this. Going back many, many years we've had many discussions about fork
process, and the parts people (historically) agreed with tend to be:
(1) come up with an idea
(2) socialize the idea in the technical community, see if anyone comes up with any major issues or
can suggest better ideas which solve the same use-cases in cleaner ways
(3) propose the concrete idea with a more well-defined strawman, socialize that, get some kind of
rough consensus in the loosely-defined, subjective, "technical community" (ie just ask people and
adapt to feedback until you have found some kind of average of the opinions of people you, the
fork-champion, think are reasonably well-informed!).
(4) okay, admittedly beyond this is a bit less defined, but we can deal with it when we get there.
Turns out, the issue today is a lack of champions following steps 1-3, we can debate what the
correct answer is to step (4) once we actually have people who want to be champions who are willing
to (humbly) push an idea forward towards rough agreement of the world of technical bitcoiners
(without which I highly doubt you'd ever see broader-community consensus).
Matt
|
