Hi Michael,
> I agree with Matt. The less said about the "Aw shucks Jeremy didn't know that
> CTV didn't have community consensus at the time" [0] and "it was the lack of
> process that was the problem" the better.
The linked gist cannot be taken seriously and I am not sure why you keep
shari
Hi alicexbt
> Good to see some positivity, finally.
I had enthusiasm for this concept of enabling proposed soft fork functionality
on signet 2 years ago [0]. Nothing has changed, still enthusiastic :) Not
enthusiastic about the months wasted on unnecessary contentious soft fork drama
since but
Hi AJ,
Thanks to setup a new laboratory for consensus upgrades experiment! Idea
was exposed during the last LN Summit, glad to see there is a useful fork
now.
While I think one of the problem particular in the current stagnation about
consensus upgrades has been well scoped by your proposal, name
