Ironically assumptions of bad faith are going to kill any proposal,
resulting in the status quo.
Let's keep the assumption of good faith, unless you are actually accusing
people of being a NSA-adjacent asset.
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 10:08 AM alicexbt via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfound
> 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
sheshek found some issues with the list and some of them are not really an
opposition for CTV.
On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 15:49, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
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
Hi Michael,
Sorry, if my critique of your opinions feels too personal to you. This is
nothing personal. As you probably know, one of the most effective attack
vectors on Bitcoin is to target the social layer by sabotaging the protocol
development[1]. Bike shedding is an easy way to cause a lot
Hi Michael,
I'm sympathetic to the idea of allowing time for the community to absorb,
review, analyze, discuss, etc any new substantial change to bitcoin,
especially consensus changes. I certainly think that over time the
frequency of soft forks should generally go down on average, with
ossificati
Ok last one. Whatever you say and whatever personal attacks you come up with
I'm not responding after this one :)
> 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
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 o
Hi Robin
I was in two minds to respond because I feel I am just repeating myself from
previous emails to this list [1], [2], [3]. I'm not sure whether you have read
those posts or are just blocking them out because you disagree with them. I
also don't think much (anything?) has changed since I
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
> 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 Rus
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
