Dear Michael,
Firstly, I think it is great that you do share enthusiasm for "vaults, eltoo
constructions, payment pools etc". Many people see covenants (or covenant-like
features) as one of the most important upgrades currently in the pipe line
because it enables so many important use cases and interesting areas of
research. In particular vaults and scalability solutions.
However, I have tried to figure out why you invest so much time and effort to
oppose CTV. Honestly, the reasons you mentioned here [1] do not make much sense
to me and it feels like your attitude is not very constructive as you do not
suggest a better way forward.
You wrote "This research and experimentation should mature before considering
activation" even though you know that BIP-119 has been finalised more than two
years ago. Also the implementation has been reviewed extensively and it has
matured for years. So, your framing of "experimentation" and "premature
activation" just doesn't reflect the truth here. Even your argument is already
more than a year old...
Additionally, you do not address that CTV is intentionally designed to be the
most simple and conservative upgrade towards full-featured covenants. CTV only
enables a feature that is already possible today using a trusted party.
Opposing this conservative approach means you are either in favour of
activating a more powerful feature or you do not want covenants at all. It's
not clear to me what you want because you just keep opposing CTV without trying
to make better suggestions. What do you want?
Your other arguments mostly discuss soft forks in general. This is a different
topic though. I think it is not a good idea to mix that up. And claiming that
CTV implies continuous soft forks is again dishonest framing. It suggests that
covenants were just a random idea of Jeremy even though you know that many
reputable bitcoin developers have been researching this topic for years. Truth
is Jeremy does a great service to the community by facing this draining
activation drama to make trustless covenants possible.
Now, in your most recent email your main concern seems to be a potential chain
split. This is again a weak argument against CTV because your concerns apply to
any upgrade. Furthermore, you are increasing this risk by opposing CTV without
trying to find a common way forward to activate covenants. This doesn't serve
bitcoin. I think it would be better for everyone if you would invest your time
in trying to formulate a better solution. Covenants are too important to just
oppose them because of inaccurate framing or because of opposition to soft
forks in general.
Regards,
Robin
[1] https://github.com/JeremyRubin/utxos.org/issues/27
------- Original Message -------
On Wednesday, April 20th, 2022 at 3:24 PM, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> The client has a Speedy trial release similar to Taproots with parameters
>> proposed to be....
>
> As I've said before I was hoping we'd avoid this exercise. Best case, it
> wastes the time of people who could be working on all sorts of valuable
> projects for the ecosystem. Worst case, we take a Russian roulette style
> gamble with a chain split.
>
> But here's a summary of the basic facts:
>
> The latest Bitcoin Core release candidate (23.0) does not contain any new
> soft fork code, either CTV code or any new activation code. Running Bitcoin
> Core 23.0 out the box will not signal for any new soft fork and will not
> enforce any new soft fork rules (CTV or otherwise). Of course it will
> continue to enforce Taproot rules as Taproot activated last year.
>
> There are a number of individuals who have stated opposition to attempting to
> activate a CTV soft fork in the near term:
>
> https://gist.github.com/michaelfolkson/352a503f4f9fc5de89af528d86a1b718
>
> Most of those individuals haven't logged their opposition on Jeremy's site:
> https://utxos.org/signals/
>
> Hence their views haven't been included or discussed in Jeremy's latest blog
> post.
>
> Chain split risk
>
> I can't predict how many full nodes and miners will run Jeremy's client
> attempting to activate CTV. One would expect that many will continue to run
> versions of Bitcoin Core that will not enforce CTV rules and will not
> activate it. But whether Jeremy's client will be a majority, significant
> minority, insignificant minority of full nodes and miners would be
> speculation on my part. (Personally I highly doubt those running Jeremy's
> client will be a majority which leaves a significant minority and
> insignificant minority as the most likely options).
>
> Jeremy's client is intending to use Speedy Trial presumably with similar
> parameters to that used for Taproot. That would mean seeking 90 percent of
> miners to signal for this CTV soft fork activation attempt.
>
> Assuming 90 percent of miners don't signal for it in one of the Speedy Trial
> windows then the activation attempt will have failed and it will be back in
> Jeremy's court whether he tries again with a different activation attempt.
>
> Assuming 90 percent of miners do signal for it (unlikely in my opinion but
> presumably still a possibility) then the CTV soft fork could activate unless
> full nodes resist it. This resistance would most likely be in the form of a
> UASF style client which rejects blocks that apply the CTV rules and/or
> includes transactions that don't meet the CTV rules post activation. We would
> now be in chain split territory with two different assets and blockchains
> like we had with BTC and BCH.
>
> If I oppose this activation attempt and the associated chain split risk what
> should I do?
>
> Firstly, you can register your opposition to this soft fork activation
> attempt on Jeremy's site: https://utxos.org/signals/
>
> It seems Jeremy will continue this activation attempt regardless but it will
> be useful for others to see clearly that this a contentious soft fork
> activation attempt and act accordingly. So far only 3 individuals' opposition
> is registered on his site.
>
> Secondly, if it is looking like 90 percent (or whatever percentage Jeremy
> uses) of miners are going to signal for a CTV soft fork then you can consider
> joining a UASF style effort to resist the soft fork activation attempt. I
> will certainly seek to participate and will continue to inform this list of
> efforts in this direction.
>
> The saddest thing is that if Jeremy's soft fork activation attempt causes the
> uncertainty, confusion and disruption I fear it could it will make future
> soft forks that do have community consensus orders of magnitude harder to
> pull off. There are a number of soft fork proposals that I'm personally
> excited about (enabling covenants, eltoo, Simplicity, CISA etc) that long
> term we might get with a sensible approach to only activating soft forks that
> have community consensus. But the more uncertainty, confusion and disruption
> we create over contentious soft forks the more dangerous any soft fork of any
> form will appear. The primary focus will need to be resisting soft forks that
> don't have community consensus and ensuring Bitcoin doesn't splinter into a
> large number of different assets/blockchains with different combinations of
> soft forks active.
>
> So if you oppose this soft fork activation attempt please voice your
> opposition, run full node software that doesn't include CTV and CTV
> activation code such as Bitcoin Core and if/when necessary and available run
> full node software that proactively rejects application of the CTV rules.
>
> --
> Michael Folkson
> Email: michaelfolkson at [protonmail.com](http://protonmail.com/)
> Keybase: michaelfolkson
> PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3
>
> ------- Original Message -------
> On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 18:31, Jeremy Rubin via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Devs,
>>
>> In advance of the CTV meeting today, I wanted to share what my next step is
>> in advocating for CTV, as well as 7 theses for why I believe it to be the
>> right course of action to take at this time.
>>
>> Please see the post at
>> https://rubin.io/bitcoin/2022/04/17/next-steps-bip119/.
>>
>> As always, open to hear any and all feedback,
>>
>> Jeremy
>>
>> archived at:
>> https://web.archive.org/web/20220419172825/https://rubin.io/bitcoin/2022/04/17/next-steps-bip119/
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
