Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB16CC002D for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2022 03:51:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A405741952 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2022 03:51:57 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EFtkAdHYzPIt for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2022 03:51:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-pl1-x62c.google.com (mail-pl1-x62c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62c]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A52B441951 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2022 03:51:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pl1-x62c.google.com with SMTP id t2so16537670pld.4 for ; Tue, 07 Jun 2022 20:51:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=JNNN0oR5Og9u/r+y/XPss3WKWG2eDGCjKukQ6BQCoDQ=; b=Xtppr0N1M/yQVjR06cZSRkPq2HtvGe6RCpV9zstd+fq0ujYnHhp+Cc2LI5Fu2N0zHm /rh2DdQC3Y2CHP33bEGPbNExK+dfuSYPBg0FWnBdyvorG98Ylxt9LXm+XNtfc71dCECB xMkVtKORTSVI5mKcW9Xb1I/4sDt2WyTUMF3tYV7HNxLacksaKH0SuhEM8TUBtZpTSd1z 9iFLLD5YxEvZ0v26IugQPJWbDoTNcVvQ7TYtIP8w/Po36b17H/BScxuco0oCcw2s/s8n mmiKtfgzZ1Hvp1kJcTcZ94IDNYvhEGCoXjiYnGvQW3XbfcJ5pCl9JMxwBcLI6hk2h9Oz Pnvg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=JNNN0oR5Og9u/r+y/XPss3WKWG2eDGCjKukQ6BQCoDQ=; b=5ffCpP1Yo7eCexM/dL/NhnQuOs+qaEe5YByiF2pO3Qk0FUpuVvFRhD0ryaTzVe6RN4 nB4yA/Knz2pdkHAtB/60+HkPM3MXrUbXQ5Hb2JYhlVzIUDa4IPSHEmO1vXQwzAOAg4eX veB2nPZc7AGNXzt/bYA2Ci6ZshX4s4+gPwaGqe2XyjDSizjcx9kF6grErG8+k97Oi4ki DnjzLBf/6YgT91juxs1b7FC1qCAabnuf4YtPggt6IYCB20mQre0VjZA4Ul/ClWtCBxr1 lzImltjARktRzt5Krqy8ow34BlYPSu+NT3vF6aTxZLQLUlsrA8d/6D+UbCR+WL+NTjXI rl+w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531VE5jLHYkqdesX+/V1JK5Il4RIf0tWFN3jmmOuNStxNT/XUtRQ 1M/R6jKpvTyiMHzicQ07yo6mMhhorhcrMI2kMF1czWTY X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxubI/vy8atcG2zB8Z6bS2S+hBAWVEscn9v0KOt0sEv4QPtPeAHJrKczEiVl53sB92L9V3EbqIRhE6hOv9amRo= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:3ec2:b0:1e8:9ca4:8d55 with SMTP id rm2-20020a17090b3ec200b001e89ca48d55mr8592960pjb.123.1654660314812; Tue, 07 Jun 2022 20:51:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Billy Tetrud Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2022 22:51:40 -0500 Message-ID: To: alicexbt , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000049d7fa05e0e7a09f" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 08 Jun 2022 07:38:08 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2022 03:51:57 -0000 --00000000000049d7fa05e0e7a09f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Wholeheartedly agree with you alicexbt. There are no technical issues that have been shown that I'm aware of. Once the non-technical folks have time to discuss it and realize that, I'm hopeful things will move forward. Perhaps we can learn from this and figure out how to better catch the attention of the larger bitcoin community for important changes without alarming them. On Sun, Jun 5, 2022 at 2:48 AM alicexbt via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > 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.h= tml > > 4) Misleading things shared in these emails by Michael Folkson: > > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-January/0197= 28.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 develope= rs > 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-controvers= y-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=3DMIT%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 Tim=C3=B3n > 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 marke= t. > > > - 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 an= d > 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 b= ut > 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 oka= y > 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 shar= e > 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 chang= es > 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 oth= er > 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 > --00000000000049d7fa05e0e7a09f Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Wholeheartedly agree with you alicexbt. There are no techn= ical issues that have been shown that I'm aware of. Once the non-techni= cal folks have time to discuss it and realize that, I'm hopeful things = will move forward. Perhaps we can learn from this and figure out how to bet= ter catch the attention of the larger bitcoin community=C2=A0 for important= =C2=A0changes without alarming them.=C2=A0

On Sun, Jun 5, 2022 at 2:48 AM al= icexbt via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Hi Jorge,


Misinformation is false or inaccurate information, especially that which is= deliberately intended to deceive. A combination of 'misleading' an= d 'information'. Here are a few examples and I am sure I missed a l= ot 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/152= 1354192434073602

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:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 https:= //lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-January/019728.html<= /a>

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://= lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020235.html<= br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://= lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020286.html<= br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://= lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020343.html<= br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://= lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020386.html<= br>
5) Peter Todd and Zac shared misleading things about BIP 119, bitcoin and L= 2. I replied in this email: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/02= 0322.html

6) Social media influencers like Peter McCormack tweeted they don't und= erstand BIP 119 but its an attack (this was even retweeted by developers li= ke Peter Todd): https://nitter.net/Peter= McCormack/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 accordi= ng to this Bitcoin Magazine article: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/analyzing-b= ip119-and-the-controversy-surrounding-it

9) John Carvalho tweeting false things:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://nitter.net/Bitcoi= nErrorLog/status/1468599535538745359

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://nitter.net/Bitcoi= nErrorLog/status/1522652884218822658

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://nitter.net/Bitcoi= nErrorLog/status/1442554615967354880

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://nitter.net/search?= q=3DMIT%20(from%3ABitcoinErrorLog)

10) Greg Maxwell responding to misinformation related to BIP 119 but adding= false things in the comments: http= s://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 a= re interested in reviewing BIP 119 could raise the bar and not share mislea= ding information.


/dev/fd0


Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
------- Original Message -------
On Sunday, June 5th, 2022 at 12:12 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote:


> "Some people say CTV is contentious, but they're spreading mi= sinformation"? 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@li= sts.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 f= ork. CTV is the easiest and best possible way OP_TX looks good as well. Apa= rt from the technical merits, covenants will improve a few other things: > >
> > - Developers can build interesting projects with real demand in m= arket.
> > - Students learn Sapio and not just solidity.
> > - Better tooling could be available for application developers. > > - Maybe we see bitcoin developer hackathons in different countrie= s.
> > - Demand for block space might increase, it wont be just exchange= s 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, spr= ead misinformation and do all types of drama, politics etc. on social media= but there are zero technical NACKs for CTV. We have discussed other covena= nt 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 proposa= l that everyone will agree on or argue for years to pretend changes are har= d in Bitcoin. We should improve the review process for soft fork BIPs and s= hare honest opinions with agreement, disagreement on technical merits.
> >
> > I prefer BIP 8 or improved BIP 8 for soft fork but I won't mi= nd 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 change= s 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 mentio= ned 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.linuxfoundatio= n.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--00000000000049d7fa05e0e7a09f--