Hi Michael,
Thank you for your reply. You wrote:
> I have a better (and safer) way forward which is to continue to build out use
> cases of CTV, convince the community it is the best tool for the job
> (whatever use case(s) that is), compare it to other existing covenant
> enabling proposals on those use cases and then get to a point where the
> community is confident that it is activating a proposal(s) that will stand
> the test of time.
Where can I see the use cases you have built out in recent years? Do you have a
writeup in which you compare CTV to existing covenant enabling proposals? Do
you have a strong reason to favour a different proposal? Have you written any
code?
I've seen pages of text of you complaining about details of CTV activation but
nothing tangible that would prove that you are actually interested in real
progress on covenants.
In contrast, Jeremy has been doing exactly what you are proposing. He wrote the
BIP, implemented it, explained use cases in detail, spoke at conferences,
organised workshops, and built the Sapio framework for the community to
experiment with covenants. He even puts his money where his mouth is and offers
a bug bounty for any security flaw in the code.
> You may not like that way forward because it requires a lot of work, a lot of
> time and a lot of patience.
A lot of work, a lot of time and a lot of patience is exactly what Jeremy has
been investing for years. I think by framing his contributions as "immature"
you are disrespecting all the work he put into BIP-119. If you could point me
to essays of you thoughtfully comparing various covenant proposals then I could
see your point, but you're only ranting on other people's work which requires
no real effort and it doesn't contribute much. If you are not willing to do
what you are suggesting for years why should anybody else do it? Should the
entire community stall progress on covenants until somebody else works on what
you think is ideal?
Bike shedding is just as big of an issue as "contentious soft forks". Pointless
activation drama is a huge issue of bitcoin protocol development because it is
so draining. Some of the most respected devs do not participate in activation
politics anymore because it harms their health. That's nuts. If you really want
to be of service to the Bitcoin community you should work on what you think is
the right path forward and not just criticise Jeremy for progressing with his
excellent work.
Looking forward to check out your contributions!
Regards,
Robin
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
