Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8915C002F for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 22:20:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD2E040159 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 22:20:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tutanota.de Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ePZH8KfuohfS for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 22:20:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from w1.tutanota.de (w1.tutanota.de [81.3.6.162]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E11F74010C for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 22:20:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from w3.tutanota.de (unknown [192.168.1.164]) by w1.tutanota.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF9A3FA0305; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 22:20:45 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1642544445; s=s1; d=tutanota.de; h=From:From:To:To:Subject:Subject:Content-Description:Content-ID:Content-Type:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Cc:Date:Date:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Message-ID:Reply-To:References:Sender; bh=evzJnOr0rp5kjuoMOLl0FItDMzpjtKWaH2hCXKLw+a0=; b=NGOQOcAHJYyEuFbdIRpYzRIyuyxFsajpVy+5bgJFrwX9WCsPjRikRq0Mn5qQ/yQ1 c12svPd1ztTqsbLb6GS0+ywQcw33UqO+jaA+unZ4jHYZnO6w8Q8qafRa5nT89y7Ppxg L/3MARNjNP7CYSPmUQBNAOA1VUKiyq0cwRl6psjTaLVvhFh/nnVkvbZZWNqVn1Pk6sZ /6riu+aXR7sbfWRSlzvVZUmMWR4SDXgnhT+6bQjzgD5aqDz24DAD9u2XNKtqCb7NkuI JYULdx07rgIbeJrosCTetoJJkLuzPPi8xzpZfpcEYDaM+uczaZ7Ld+D5gZT5pvFy0U+ zariN9FgXA== Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 23:20:45 +0100 (CET) From: Prayank To: luke@dashjr.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_26838_1463751396.1642544445904" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 23:17:31 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV BIP review 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: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 22:20:49 -0000 ------=_Part_26838_1463751396.1642544445904 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Luke, This is the first competent review for CTV based on my understanding. I would not mention controversial things in this email but nobody cares about scammers and we will review everything irrespective of personal or legal attacks on developers because some people are prepared for it and capable, competent and healthy. > nit: Poorly phrased. Even simple scripts can do that already. Agree > I would ideally like to see fully implemented BIPs for at least one of these (preferably the claimed CoinJoin improvements) before we move toward activation. Agree > Hard NACK on this. BIP 9 at this point represents developers attempting to disregard and impose their will over community consensus, as well as an attempt to force a miner veto backdoor/vulnerability on deployment. It should never be used again. Agree Other technical comments on BIP are appreciated however they would be better answered by Jeremy at this point or other as I am still researching and not confident to comment. -- Prayank A3B1 E430 2298 178F ------=_Part_26838_1463751396.1642544445904 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Luke,

This i= s the first competent review for CTV based on my understanding. I would not= mention controversial things in this email but nobody cares about scammers= and we will review everything irrespective of personal or legal attacks on= developers because some people are prepared for it and capable, competent = and healthy.

> ni= t: Poorly phrased. Even simple scripts can do that already.

Agree
> I would ideally like to see fully implemente= d BIPs for at least one of these (preferably the claimed CoinJoin improveme= nts) before we move toward activation.

Agree

> Hard NACK on this. BIP 9 at this point represents developers atte= mpting to disregard and impose their will over community consensus, as well= as an attempt to force a miner veto backdoor/vulnerability on deployment. = It should never be used again.

Agree

Oth= er technical comments on BIP are appreciated however they would be better a= nswered by Jeremy at this point or other as I am still researching and not = confident to comment.

--
Prayank

A3B1 E430 2298 178= F
------=_Part_26838_1463751396.1642544445904--