Michael Folkson [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2022-03-09 📝 Original message:Hi Jorge > Since this has ...
📅 Original date posted:2022-03-09
📝 Original message:Hi Jorge
> Since this has meetings like taproot, it seems it's going to end up being added in bitcoin core no matter what.
Anyone can set up a IRC channel, anyone can organize a IRC meeting, anyone can announce meetings on the mailing list. Just because an individual is enthusiastic for a soft fork proposal does not imply it has community consensus or that it is likely to be merged into Core in the short term or long term. It is true that other soft fork proposal authors/contributors are not taking the approach Jeremy is taking and are instead working quietly in the background. I prefer the latter approach so soon after Taproot activation but I look forward to hearing about the progress made on other proposals in due course.
> Should we start the conversation on how to resist it when that happens?
We should talk more about activation mechanisms and how users should be able to actively resist them more.
I can only speak for myself but if activation was being pursued for a soft fork that didn't have community consensus I would seek to join you in an effort to resist that activation. Taproot (pre-activation discussion) set a strong precedent in terms of community outreach and patiently building community consensus over many years. If that precedent was thrown out I think we are in danger of creating the chaos that most of us would seek to avoid. You are free to start whatever conversation you want but personally until Jeremy or whoever else embarks on an activation attempt I'd rather forget about activation discussions for a while.
> What is ST? If it may be a reason to oppose CTV, why not talk about it more explicitly so that others can understand the criticisms?
ST is short for Speedy Trial, the activation mechanism used for Taproot. I have implored people on many occasions now to not mix discussion of a soft fork proposal with discussion of an activation mechanism. Those discussions can happen in parallel but they are entirely independent topics of discussion. Mixing them is misleading at best and manipulative at worst.
> It seems that criticism isn't really that welcomed and is just explained away.
Perhaps it is just my subjective perception. Sometimes it feels we're going from "don't trust, verify" to "just trust jeremy rubin", i hope this is really just my subjective perception. Because I think it would be really bad that we started to blindly trust people like that, and specially jeremy.
I think we should generally avoid getting personal on this mailing list. However, although I agree that Jeremy has done some things in the past that have been over-exuberant to put it mildly, as long as he listens to community feedback and doesn't try to force through a contentious soft fork earlier than the community is comfortable with I think his work can add material value to the future soft fork discussion. I entirely agree that we can't get into a situation where any one individual can push through a soft fork without getting community consensus and deep technical review from as many qualified people as possible. That can take a long time (the demands on long term contributors' time are vast) and hence anyone without serious levels of patience should probably exclusively work on sidechains, altcoins etc (or non-consensus changes in Bitcoin) rather than Bitcoin consensus changes.
Thanks
Michael
--
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 Wednesday, March 9th, 2022 at 11:02 AM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Since this has meetings like taproot, it seems it's going to end up being added in bitcoin core no matter what.
>
> Should we start the conversation on how to resist it when that happens?
> We should talk more about activation mechanisms and how users should be able to actively resist them more.
>
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2022, 03:32 Jeremy Rubin via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> * Tuesday, March 8th.
>>
>> I think Noon PT == 8pm UTC?
>>
>> but dont trust me i cant even tell what day is what.
>> --
>> [@JeremyRubin](https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin)
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 6:50 PM Jeremy Rubin <jeremy.l.rubin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> There will be a CTV meeting tomorrow at noon PT. Agenda below:
>>>
>>> 1) Sapio Taproot Support Update / Request for Review (20 Minutes)
>>> - Experimental support for Taproot merged on master https://github.com/sapio-lang/sapio
>>> 2) Transaction Sponsoring v.s CPFP/RBF (20 Minutes)
>>> - https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-February/019879.html
>>> - https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2020-September/018168.html
>>> 3) Jamesob's Non-Recursive Vaults Post (20 minutes)
>>> - https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-March/020067.html
>>> 4) What the heck is everyone talking about on the mailing list all of the sudden (30 minutes)
>>> - EVICT, TLUV, FOLD, Lisp, OP_ANNEX, Drivechain Covenants, Jets, Etc
>>> 5) Q&A (30 mins)
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Jeremy
>>>
>>> --
>>> [@JeremyRubin](https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220309/750d12a9/attachment-0001.html>;
📝 Original message:Hi Jorge
> Since this has meetings like taproot, it seems it's going to end up being added in bitcoin core no matter what.
Anyone can set up a IRC channel, anyone can organize a IRC meeting, anyone can announce meetings on the mailing list. Just because an individual is enthusiastic for a soft fork proposal does not imply it has community consensus or that it is likely to be merged into Core in the short term or long term. It is true that other soft fork proposal authors/contributors are not taking the approach Jeremy is taking and are instead working quietly in the background. I prefer the latter approach so soon after Taproot activation but I look forward to hearing about the progress made on other proposals in due course.
> Should we start the conversation on how to resist it when that happens?
We should talk more about activation mechanisms and how users should be able to actively resist them more.
I can only speak for myself but if activation was being pursued for a soft fork that didn't have community consensus I would seek to join you in an effort to resist that activation. Taproot (pre-activation discussion) set a strong precedent in terms of community outreach and patiently building community consensus over many years. If that precedent was thrown out I think we are in danger of creating the chaos that most of us would seek to avoid. You are free to start whatever conversation you want but personally until Jeremy or whoever else embarks on an activation attempt I'd rather forget about activation discussions for a while.
> What is ST? If it may be a reason to oppose CTV, why not talk about it more explicitly so that others can understand the criticisms?
ST is short for Speedy Trial, the activation mechanism used for Taproot. I have implored people on many occasions now to not mix discussion of a soft fork proposal with discussion of an activation mechanism. Those discussions can happen in parallel but they are entirely independent topics of discussion. Mixing them is misleading at best and manipulative at worst.
> It seems that criticism isn't really that welcomed and is just explained away.
Perhaps it is just my subjective perception. Sometimes it feels we're going from "don't trust, verify" to "just trust jeremy rubin", i hope this is really just my subjective perception. Because I think it would be really bad that we started to blindly trust people like that, and specially jeremy.
I think we should generally avoid getting personal on this mailing list. However, although I agree that Jeremy has done some things in the past that have been over-exuberant to put it mildly, as long as he listens to community feedback and doesn't try to force through a contentious soft fork earlier than the community is comfortable with I think his work can add material value to the future soft fork discussion. I entirely agree that we can't get into a situation where any one individual can push through a soft fork without getting community consensus and deep technical review from as many qualified people as possible. That can take a long time (the demands on long term contributors' time are vast) and hence anyone without serious levels of patience should probably exclusively work on sidechains, altcoins etc (or non-consensus changes in Bitcoin) rather than Bitcoin consensus changes.
Thanks
Michael
--
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 Wednesday, March 9th, 2022 at 11:02 AM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Since this has meetings like taproot, it seems it's going to end up being added in bitcoin core no matter what.
>
> Should we start the conversation on how to resist it when that happens?
> We should talk more about activation mechanisms and how users should be able to actively resist them more.
>
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2022, 03:32 Jeremy Rubin via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> * Tuesday, March 8th.
>>
>> I think Noon PT == 8pm UTC?
>>
>> but dont trust me i cant even tell what day is what.
>> --
>> [@JeremyRubin](https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin)
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 6:50 PM Jeremy Rubin <jeremy.l.rubin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> There will be a CTV meeting tomorrow at noon PT. Agenda below:
>>>
>>> 1) Sapio Taproot Support Update / Request for Review (20 Minutes)
>>> - Experimental support for Taproot merged on master https://github.com/sapio-lang/sapio
>>> 2) Transaction Sponsoring v.s CPFP/RBF (20 Minutes)
>>> - https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-February/019879.html
>>> - https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2020-September/018168.html
>>> 3) Jamesob's Non-Recursive Vaults Post (20 minutes)
>>> - https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-March/020067.html
>>> 4) What the heck is everyone talking about on the mailing list all of the sudden (30 minutes)
>>> - EVICT, TLUV, FOLD, Lisp, OP_ANNEX, Drivechain Covenants, Jets, Etc
>>> 5) Q&A (30 mins)
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Jeremy
>>>
>>> --
>>> [@JeremyRubin](https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220309/750d12a9/attachment-0001.html>;