Hi Jorge,
Misinformation is false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive. A combination of 'misleading' and 'information'. Here are a few examples and I am sure I missed a lot of others but its difficult for me to keep a track of everything: 1) Sapio is open source and everything mentioned in tweet is false: https://web.archive.org/web/20220503050140/https://twitter.com/coinableS/status/1521354192434073602 2) Personal attacks on author of BIP 119 with false information: https://nitter.net/s3cp256k1/status/1521238634111770624 3) Andreas Antonopoulos shared false things about CTV and explained by Ryan in this email: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-May/020414.html 4) Misleading things shared in these emails by Michael Folkson: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-January/019728.html https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020235.html https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020286.html https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020343.html https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020386.html 5) Peter Todd and Zac shared misleading things about BIP 119, bitcoin and L2. I replied in this email: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020322.html 6) Social media influencers like Peter McCormack tweeted they don't understand BIP 119 but its an attack (this was even retweeted by developers like Peter Todd): https://nitter.net/PeterMcCormack/status/1521253840963653632 7) Some misconceptions about BIP 119 cleared by Bitcoin Magazine: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/what-is-bip-119-bitcoin-controversy-explained 8) There were lies and misinformation about BIP 119 on social media according to this Bitcoin Magazine article: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/analyzing-bip119-and-the-controversy-surrounding-it 9) John Carvalho tweeting false things: https://nitter.net/BitcoinErrorLog/status/1468599535538745359 https://nitter.net/BitcoinErrorLog/status/1522652884218822658 https://nitter.net/BitcoinErrorLog/status/1442554615967354880 https://nitter.net/search?q=MIT%20(from%3ABitcoinErrorLog) 10) Greg Maxwell responding to misinformation related to BIP 119 but adding false things in the comments: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/uim560/bip_119/i7dhfpb/ I am not surprised by your email but it would be better if the people who are interested in reviewing BIP 119 could raise the bar and not share misleading information. /dev/fd0 Sent with Proton Mail secure email. ------- Original Message ------- On Sunday, June 5th, 2022 at 12:12 AM, Jorge Timón <jti...@jtimon.cc> wrote: > "Some people say CTV is contentious, but they're spreading misinformation"? > Really? Seriously?Come on, guys, we can do better than nina jankovich and the > "fact checkers". > Please, rise the bar. > On Fri, Jun 3, 2022, 19:44 alicexbt via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > Note: This email is an opinion and not an attack on bitcoin > > > > Covenants on bitcoin will eventually be implemented with a soft fork. CTV > > is the easiest and best possible way OP_TX looks good as well. Apart from > > the technical merits, covenants will improve a few other things: > > > > - Developers can build interesting projects with real demand in market. > > - Students learn Sapio and not just solidity. > > - Better tooling could be available for application developers. > > - Maybe we see bitcoin developer hackathons in different countries. > > - Demand for block space might increase, it wont be just exchanges and > > coinjoin. > > - Funding of bitcoin developers and projects might improve. Wont need to > > convince a few people for grants. > > > > **Why covenants are not contentious?** > > > > Some people may write paragraphs about CTV being contentious, spread > > misinformation and do all types of drama, politics etc. on social media but > > there are zero technical NACKs for CTV. We have discussed other covenant > > proposals in detail on mailing list and IRC meetings with an open minded > > approach. > > > > All the developers that participated in the discussion are either okay with > > CTV or OP_TX or covenants in general. > > > > **How and when should covenants be implemented in Bitcoin?** > > > > I don't think we should wait for years anticipating a proposal that > > everyone will agree on or argue for years to pretend changes are hard in > > Bitcoin. We should improve the review process for soft fork BIPs and share > > honest opinions with agreement, disagreement on technical merits. > > > > I prefer BIP 8 or improved BIP 8 for soft fork but I won't mind anything > > else being used if that improves Bitcoin. Covenants implemented in Bitcoin > > before the next cycle would provide opportunity for developers to build > > interesting things during the bear market. Ossification supporters also > > believe there is some window that will close soon, maybe doing changes > > considering each case individually will be a better approach. CTV is not a > > rushed soft fork, less people followed the research and it was not > > mentioned on social media repeatedly by the respected developers like other > > soft forks. > > > > /dev/fd0 > > > > > > Sent with Proton Mail secure email. > > _______________________________________________ > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
