path: root/97/287d6dcff42b1a51f6e18d242124287e002d8f

Return-Path: <fresheneesz@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70E95C002D
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sun,  1 May 2022 19:14:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B4F282909
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sun,  1 May 2022 19:14:48 +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: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id mpTDZEl0KliU
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sun,  1 May 2022 19:14:47 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-pg1-x52a.google.com (mail-pg1-x52a.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52a])
 by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 042BB828DF
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sun,  1 May 2022 19:14:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52a.google.com with SMTP id i62so10264971pgd.6
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sun, 01 May 2022 12:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
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=fI2ELPa0uPcfglX+G/r3KqYJLMCwJtLZ8wIsWCwXC/0=;
 b=C4NjPVTWEiqQ1saqs6g6c2K8ZegqCrNcmwbBa0+AN+Jb/wohF/OPoTVFLgAMZ+n2nG
 z61y2QATTuq7RHpF5fMrIz6SpnVYiZaAEeN+Ygg+qXmtdScp4HMs+LUmptphaOzURjSI
 DNLppZdwk4yrOyiAwZxJDWG8luyMriYHyK1Uqu7yes1lvA6TrmyX0c+UqVZCKjn12WLL
 brUbJDTqy/FyNhR6cX11hFpQvsS6YZeHLu8an4v0vDPIiecKW765nBXIJfGRLsl3wUpn
 iRu+pByMNZdVX4QvixhzFKJaBSf1VO0yvuhLE0goz1sWdHdCDjlkpu/em9CFPpiRHq7s
 p1Mg==
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=fI2ELPa0uPcfglX+G/r3KqYJLMCwJtLZ8wIsWCwXC/0=;
 b=1OOBFf87viQUoxXW4mDjy9zJOS+dJ4lPrNJIGg8Ztb5O0Kmn0VRsN7Hdep4CPb9PbU
 4r7Aa02mav/n4IvJVAVUQcZ50ap8ijyXeVS+RqGVyPFa/cpjWV7ex1tnyMuxbp53IPE+
 FED71pOWIiJpDZq3ZIC8yFuVbflv6Ky13lsw8WYQxcPlUEtgG34VN8j4dWF1YSkgwtfI
 cYRfwDhLMVWYOKMI5KStJimXaDim2raB7tsUdYur4vv+p7GR4jhdIFxDPqGlNrorfJs/
 x0axa/q0hh+S6Gz6YXvGZSD9fpP7mIJnDwtfo9OplJKwPWExJZ0z4RlG7vLayrzom2aM
 ckjQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533mKTGo/ukT1pr1hWqILq3t+qcO/e8OZDHjLy691I45OtYU3Q7D
 SpE6oLVT0W9FtEnhpL9yoHfG935e+1GoQveGKM/LJJm3
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyJzyZJ11a8MYV34/XtsoBzY4KBNXnkYrhuYFWA7HOwPxrVTaB0t4BeZ2u+CTjr+7rqRQ6kpZRbxqEE1OwwoI8=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:2442:b0:4fd:8b00:d2f with SMTP id
 d2-20020a056a00244200b004fd8b000d2fmr8229567pfj.39.1651432486232; Sun, 01 May
 2022 12:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <EpwH6R7Ol7S4DZ4r_UcSSMU9RysZiRHFKZ2WkWZatUIeU9YE9avRZ-YIiafnf6I6U4tBbEu5xHa4JwcGh0fxMuyY-fGMwpaesfo5XK6SzLc=@protonmail.com>
 <WtHCNGNhHAWBer9QnaWajdbJ341jMHQJa23WAPgNaRldKhopPIN7ry8wNAnmfnlAK6j0m7p3NEgckA6kIjWV5_rFla63Bh6HCfAlLHFODsE=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <WtHCNGNhHAWBer9QnaWajdbJ341jMHQJa23WAPgNaRldKhopPIN7ry8wNAnmfnlAK6j0m7p3NEgckA6kIjWV5_rFla63Bh6HCfAlLHFODsE=@protonmail.com>
From: Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 14:14:29 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGpPWDb-T4OB0NKv7O5k9yhDQJtmag1QLqM1jJN9fQMoNTPLug@mail.gmail.com>
To: alicexbt <alicexbt@protonmail.com>, 
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b6653605ddf81602"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 01 May 2022 20:49:08 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] What to do when contentious soft fork activations
 are attempted
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: Sun, 01 May 2022 19:14:48 -0000

--000000000000b6653605ddf81602
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

+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, 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.
>
>
> 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 mailin=
g
> 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=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
>

--000000000000b6653605ddf81602
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">+1 alicexbt<br><div><br></div><div>We of course want knowl=
edgeable=C2=A0bitcoiners who aren&#39;t knowledgeable=C2=A0about a certain =
proposal to be skeptical. But what we don&#39;t want is for that natural sk=
epticism-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 thi=
nk we want to give time for understanding to those who have not participate=
d in the first, second, third, etc round of discussion on a proposal. It ma=
y not be reasonable to say &quot;you had the last 2 years of time to voice =
your concern&quot;.</div><div><br></div><div>Now that CTV is being taken se=
riously as a proposal, we probably should give the community who is finally=
 taking a serious look at it time to understand, get their questions answer=
ed, 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=C2=A0into it, b=
ut rather that the community as a whole has not paid enough attention to it=
 for long enough.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>The wrong approach is: &qu=
ot;how do I yell more loudly next time I see something I&#39;m uncomfortabl=
e with?&quot; The right approach is to educate those who aren&#39;t educate=
d on the proposal and gather consensus on what people think when they under=
stand enough about it to contribute to that consensus. If you care about co=
nsensus, you should respect the consensus process and be ok with consensus =
being not your preferred outcome. If you don&#39;t care about consensus, th=
en you&#39;re basically attacking the bitcoin community.=C2=A0</div></div><=
br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Sun,=
 May 1, 2022 at 3:22 AM alicexbt via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitc=
oin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@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"><di=
v 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">1</a>, =
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-Jan=
uary/019728.html" target=3D"_blank">2</a>, <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfo=
undation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020235.html" target=3D"_blank=
">3</a> highlighting the dangers many months ago or recent posts. Normally =
Optech is very high 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><p><br>
Answering the subject of this email: &quot;What to do when contentious soft=
 forks activations are attempted?&quot;<br>
<br>
- Do not consider something contentious because someone said it on mailing =
list<br>
- Do not spread misinformation<br>
- Read all posts in detail with different opinions<br>
- Avoid personal attacks<br>
- Look at the technical details, code etc. and comment on things that could=
 be improved</p><p>
<br>
<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" 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">b=
itcoin-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">1</a>, =
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-Jan=
uary/019728.html" target=3D"_blank">2</a>, <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfo=
undation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020235.html" target=3D"_blank=
">3</a> highlighting the dangers many months ago or recent posts. Normally =
Optech is very high 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=
">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">=
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>
</blockquote></div>

--000000000000b6653605ddf81602--