Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B66EEC002D for ; Sun, 1 May 2022 12:46:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5AC080C65 for ; Sun, 1 May 2022 12:46:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=jtimon-cc.20210112.gappssmtp.com Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cEc-mgQSNKRU for ; Sun, 1 May 2022 12:46:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-yw1-x112d.google.com (mail-yw1-x112d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::112d]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5258C80C58 for ; Sun, 1 May 2022 12:46:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw1-x112d.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-2f7c424c66cso125217567b3.1 for ; Sun, 01 May 2022 05:46:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jtimon-cc.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ivhumO6ffLC1BvL2qU1MV5yerLu+ODwUZEAVIoimrzQ=; b=Kejucvls6DizSh3dAMcXO0nsVypj5RMMXoY8TuJ0Dlgq+BI7F6eNgR5SRJo9xEdFAB F5jKi8dRQLP+Q9ASGF5rMjf8qcHQ4sXGpD+q7cYxgrgigLd2IFa2lvVqnquKYn58o7tD pjfME3/Bpj3KBKnUklMKgilEFSA8QdF2mVfs48+9HES6VKY8x7nzeS4Pb8NzvjixzQd6 9tNO6oQPItslzwh+sEN6/MBwkUzDGQWrVmYrU8tBeyMn8OhfkBK1p3vAXeLGjBgZczUc KMKw08uVCEPWW1h7mBYWdIOiTi2PYwXQlWELXHOH8U/4MnU5xJi2+faxMPzRDQbzoTUy gNKw== 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:cc; bh=ivhumO6ffLC1BvL2qU1MV5yerLu+ODwUZEAVIoimrzQ=; b=5pmuOJTbbxNKOOVjQHReIxoG0YI88NiWxcGpDkfkKyQ2ljjGlamGppemUZGxVtQXb3 h8fYPKCJk5qsHyD9LJtCuiBzN7aorQZ+KJ1uiEEx+d/D7xpcuRj2Xve46hgPfq2s+6I0 V8HwulD0PdCIp9jUdYlZwnkH6A1I7F/mjZENc6fqnDzTlcOTvM7LaJtj5C6h47sYXYxa x9XsyX1UwFFLoWNHrxnddhtz0EsscoKWbODtaLMURg46+raSJmjk/VCAWAuxtzKitaX5 G8AyFDzht08NfuCwnHjzhi5JMRHN7voUhzD47pMSUP8AwUTt9Mz3A6q86+yI+NtteB2k k5cw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53182zktOnc4U9/PXWPZy3w98zTwYIYFNOCNjNjvFeqWaNgxJHcF ivp4JJFtkThd8OO1PIm2stS3g0gACC3KD0kL7vDG7w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzh5mMlzgg01UPc/F9NMdPL14GpVWZFZp6Ans2xdXrXW7afZ58+tJOnIRLvbV4x4qxjURRzpJzJW1dbBwt93PU= X-Received: by 2002:a81:6145:0:b0:2f1:7a81:83f with SMTP id v66-20020a816145000000b002f17a81083fmr7408468ywb.366.1651409197036; Sun, 01 May 2022 05:46:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 13:47:54 +0100 Message-ID: To: alicexbt , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000918f3405ddf2aad9" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 01 May 2022 20:49:08 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] What to do when contentious soft fork activations are attempted 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: Sun, 01 May 2022 12:46:39 -0000 --000000000000918f3405ddf2aad9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, May 1, 2022, 09:22 alicexbt via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Hi Michael, > > Maybe the whole thing worked as designed. Some users identified what was > going on, well known Bitcoin educators such as Andreas Antonopoulos, Jimm= y > Song etc brought additional attention to the dangers, a URSF movement > started to gain momentum and those attempting a contentious soft fork > activation backed off. (Disappointingly Bitcoin Optech didn't cover my > previous posts to this mailing list 1 > , > 2 > , > 3 > > highlighting the dangers many months ago or recent posts. Normally Optech > is very high signal.) > > > Some users have been misled and there is nothing great being achieved by > doing this on social media. Andreas is clueless about BIP 119 and other > covenant proposals. He is spreading misinformation and some of the URSF > enthusiasts do not understand what are they even opposing or going to run > with risks involved. > Clueless and spreading disinformation, you say? What misinformation, could you explain? > - Avoid personal attacks > Could accusing someone of apreading misinformation without prove and calling him clueless be considered a personal attack? What do we do with hypocrites and liars? People who knowingly lie to push their own agenda, how do we protect against those? > /dev/fd0 > > Sent with ProtonMail secure email. > > ------- Original Message ------- > On Saturday, April 30th, 2022 at 3:23 PM, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: > > > I=E2=80=99ve been in two minds on whether to completely move on to other = topics or > to formulate some thoughts on the recent attempt to activate a contentiou= s > soft fork. In the interests of those of us who have wasted > days/weeks/months of our time on this (with no personal upside) and who > don=E2=80=99t want to repeat this exercise again I thought I should at le= ast raise > the issue for discussion of what should be done differently if this is > tried again in future. > > This could be Jeremy with OP_CTV at a later point (assuming it is still > contentious) or anyone who wants to pick up a single opcode that is not y= et > activated on Bitcoin and try to get miners to signal for it bypassing > technical concerns from many developers, bypassing Bitcoin Core and > bypassing users. > > Maybe the whole thing worked as designed. Some users identified what was > going on, well known Bitcoin educators such as Andreas Antonopoulos, Jimm= y > Song etc brought additional attention to the dangers, a URSF movement > started to gain momentum and those attempting a contentious soft fork > activation backed off. (Disappointingly Bitcoin Optech didn't cover my > previous posts to this mailing list 1 > , > 2 > , > 3 > > highlighting the dangers many months ago or recent posts. Normally Optech > is very high signal.) > > Alternatively this was the first time a contentious soft fork activation > was attempted, we were all woefully unprepared for it and none of us knew > what we were doing. > > I=E2=80=99m unsure on the above. I=E2=80=99d be interested to hear though= ts. What I am > sure of is that it is totally unacceptable for one individual to bring th= e > entire Bitcoin network to the brink of a chain split. There has to be a > personal cost to that individual dissuading them from trying it again > otherwise they=E2=80=99re motivated to try it again every week/month. Per= haps the > personal cost that the community is now prepared if that individual tries > it again is sufficient. I=E2=80=99m not sure. Obviously Bitcoin is a perm= issionless > network, Bitcoin Core and other open source projects are easily forked an= d > no authority (I=E2=80=99m certainly no authority) can stop things like th= is > happening again. > > I=E2=80=99ll follow the responses if people have thoughts (I won't be res= ponding > to the instigators of this contentious soft fork activation attempt) but > other than that I=E2=80=99d like to move on to other things than contenti= ous soft > fork activations. Thanks to those who have expressed concerns publicly (t= oo > many to name, Bob McElrath was often wording arguments better than I coul= d) > and who were willing to engage with the URSF conversation. If an individu= al > can go directly to miners to get soft forks activated bypassing technical > concerns from many developers, bypassing Bitcoin Core and bypassing users > Bitcoin is fundamentally broken. The reason I still have hope that it isn= 't > is that during a period of general apathy some people were willing to sta= nd > up and actively resist it. > > -- > Michael Folkson > Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com > Keybase: michaelfolkson > PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3 > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --000000000000918f3405ddf2aad9 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Sun, May 1, 2022, 09:22 alicexbt via bitcoin-dev &l= t;bitcoin-dev@list= s.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

Hi Michael,

Maybe the whole thing worked as designed. Some users identified what was= going on, well known Bitcoin educators such as Andreas Antonopoulos, Jimmy= Song etc brought additional attention to the dangers, a URSF movement star= ted to gain momentum and those attempting a contentious soft fork activatio= n backed off.=C2=A0(Disappointingly Bitcoin Optech didn't cover my prev= ious posts to this mailing list 1, 2= , 3 highlighti= ng the dangers many months ago or recent posts. Normally Optech is very hig= h signal.)


Some users have been misled and there is nothing great being achieved by do= ing this on social media. Andreas is clueless about BIP 119 and other coven= ant proposals. He is spreading misinformation and some of the URSF enthusia= sts do not understand what are they even opposing or going to run with risk= s involved.

Clueless an= d spreading disinformation, you say? What misinformation, could you explain= ?


- Avoid personal attacks

Could accusing someone of apreading misinformation without prove and = calling him clueless be considered a personal attack?
What do we do with hypocrites and liars?
People wh= o knowingly lie to push their own agenda, how do we protect against those?<= /div>


/dev/fd0

Sent with ProtonMail secure email.

------- Original Message -------
On Saturday, April 30th, 2022 at 3:23 PM, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev <= a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank" r= el=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:


I=E2=80=99ve been in two minds on whether to completely move on to other= topics or to formulate some thoughts on the recent attempt to activate a c= ontentious soft fork. In the interests of those of us who have wasted days/= weeks/months of our time on this (with no personal upside) and who don=E2= =80=99t want to repeat this exercise again I thought I should at least rais= e the issue for discussion of what should be done differently if this is tr= ied again in future.

This could be Jeremy with OP_CTV at a later point (assuming it is still = contentious) or anyone who wants to pick up a single opcode that is not yet= activated on Bitcoin and try to get miners to signal for it bypassing tech= nical concerns from many developers, bypassing Bitcoin Core and bypassing u= sers.

Maybe the whole thing worked as designed. Some users identified what was= going on, well known Bitcoin educators such as Andreas Antonopoulos, Jimmy= Song etc brought additional attention to the dangers, a URSF movement star= ted to gain momentum and those attempting a contentious soft fork activatio= n backed off.=C2=A0(Disappointingly Bitcoin Optech didn't cover my prev= ious posts to this mailing list 1, 2= , 3 highlighti= ng the dangers many months ago or recent posts. Normally Optech is very hig= h signal.)

Alternatively this was the first time a contentious soft fork activation= was attempted, we were all woefully unprepared for it and none of us knew = what we were doing.

I=E2=80=99m unsure on the above. I=E2=80=99d be interested to hear thoug= hts. What I am sure of is that it is totally unacceptable for one individua= l to bring the entire Bitcoin network to the brink of a chain split. There = has to be a personal cost to that individual dissuading them from trying it= again otherwise they=E2=80=99re motivated to try it again every week/month= . Perhaps the personal cost that the community is now prepared if that indi= vidual tries it again is sufficient. I=E2=80=99m not sure. Obviously Bitcoi= n is a permissionless network, Bitcoin Core and other open source projects = are easily forked and no authority (I=E2=80=99m certainly no authority) can= stop things like this happening again.

I=E2=80=99ll follow the responses if people have thoughts (I won't b= e responding to the instigators of this contentious soft fork activation at= tempt) but other than that I=E2=80=99d like to move on to other things than= contentious soft fork activations. Thanks to those who have expressed conc= erns publicly (too many to name, Bob McElrath was often wording arguments b= etter than I could) and who were willing to engage with the URSF conversati= on. If an individual can go directly to miners to get soft forks activated = bypassing technical concerns from many developers, bypassing Bitcoin Core a= nd bypassing users Bitcoin is fundamentally broken. The reason I still have= hope that it isn't is that during a period of general apathy some peop= le were willing to stand up and actively resist it.

--
Michael Folkson
Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com
Keybase: michaelfolkson
PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundati= on.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--000000000000918f3405ddf2aad9--