Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFC2AC002D for ; Mon, 2 May 2022 02:43:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B5DA82FAE for ; Mon, 2 May 2022 02:43:44 +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: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 nEQQlflRVJuA for ; Mon, 2 May 2022 02:43:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-lf1-x12e.google.com (mail-lf1-x12e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12e]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11CD9828DF for ; Mon, 2 May 2022 02:43:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf1-x12e.google.com with SMTP id h29so15910722lfj.2 for ; Sun, 01 May 2022 19:43:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Hhh6bW33zEIg+LjQWXBeWmfwqY+cM7RAbi7VuxYTSu0=; b=l24z+VnGI+bdtW9hMFL6Nvgh+Oxmvuz82gubtxBoXJ5Atbj5YMXqqliyMHRvDUPmVX W2Df+MnG7yP9GtqhbCILxGwgkITNmC3TzW/IJkxuXR7G4mR/F9jpB/b6fGEXmtECyzTG cDOZfvU+Jyj3Mu4OqzyF2JD1ElQQofd0q6YJ9c/Ot7EQXVmyFK7wiSzjlMEc5pBDHc4o 4Fjwop4DTckiuc4pwyPcOzymrEPr11faHoRMdew04ZoIr35XdP4+U+2oIM52HD9BfQc1 yaH5TassYoNhEY85Fo+0uWOp0SrTJ84xvSD76wwZQPMrc+EdRL1jwQdyJTX0JEljBD2n b7Iw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Hhh6bW33zEIg+LjQWXBeWmfwqY+cM7RAbi7VuxYTSu0=; b=2UULeOJY6F/gPJeJtVqGe6NVvMeyGMreOWayMV6lpqUBub4YVfVwd5QgO7CaRZ+Cww M691cWQpSYi6uS4DgF4Cup8peoJ+5O/08F7F/BGplJ+5p9BCqrAv3U39Dv7dvw8fHcBM iECYfn4Gol1+fSeSG+yvB09cTe1sj1bN684S+Gp5f3JCDMA/YZA1WgoPH/wZuslYMc84 RPiyJG7IPLxw583LC0bZL07U80lM6FeoGvKuIuU08y4hg9W+Eylr4U1VcR3oB3r05Kyk /s9CSPh/rtU0/H1yfhSE8zcNB5ifB419pp09trodswMmdh/8cj4CrBPXC01FR04V33wX 7LkA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530Ru/u7R1JsdV+7XxLiy8rnoiGKnXG9eUafnt3eRSjCvvTbVSSw 5iSAz+Er8WugRoMerrQZB4ahtLoAj/2l9U4rAKLpaY1zdDQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwuVJyJqUMhBD43viEx3X6jpDylycXSA3+Q8ejnSfQbyuuAIXcAwmyaF0fHiZgocwTEBqUxkbP3f6bmyitWuog= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4288:0:b0:472:542d:9fdc with SMTP id m8-20020ac24288000000b00472542d9fdcmr7480403lfh.436.1651459420530; Sun, 01 May 2022 19:43:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Jeremy Rubin Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 19:43:29 -0700 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin development mailing list Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001f2c9205ddfe5c92" Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Working Towards Consensus 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: Mon, 02 May 2022 02:43:44 -0000 --0000000000001f2c9205ddfe5c92 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Developers, There is much to say about the events of the last two weeks and the response to them. I've been searching for the right words to share here, but I think it best that short of a more thoughtful writeup I start with a timely small step with the below comments. First, let me be clear: I am not advancing a Speedy Trial(ST) activation of Bitcoin Improvement Proposal-119 (BIP-119) CheckTemplateVerify (CTV) at this time. I'm skipping any discussion of the drama here. Most of you are interested in developing Bitcoin, not drama. Let's try to keep this thread focused on the actual work. I'll make some limited comments on the drama in a separate thread, for those who care to hear from me on the subject directly. I believe that the disinformation spread around my post ("7 Theses on a next step for BIP-119"[0]) created three main negative outcomes within the Bitcoin community: 1. Confusion about how Bitcoin's "technical consensus" works and how changes are "approved". 2. Fear about the safety of CTV and covenants more broadly. 3. Misunderstandings around the properties of Speedy Trial, User Activated Soft Fork (UASF), User Resisted Soft Fork (URSF), Soft Forks, Hard Forks, and more. While I cannot take responsibility for the spread of the disinformation, I do apologize to anyone dealing with it for the role my actions have had in leading to the current circumstance. I personally take some solace in knowing that the only way out of this is through it. The conversations happening now seem to have been more or less inevitable, this has brought them to the surface, and as a technical community we are able to address them head on if -- as individuals and collectively -- we choose to. And, viewed through a certain lens, these conversations represent incredibly important opportunities to participate in defining the future of Bitcoin that would not be happening otherwise. Ultimately, I am grateful to live in a time where I am able to play a small role in such an important process. This is the work. In the coming months, I expect the discourse to be messy, but I think the work is clear cut that we should undertake at least the following: 1. Make great efforts to better document how Bitcoin's technical consensus process works today, how it can be improved, and how changes may be formally reviewed while still being unofficially advanced. 2. Work diligently to address the concerns many in the community have around the negative potential of covenants and better explain the trade-offs between levels of functionality. 3. Renew conversations about activation and release mechanisms and re-examine our priors around why Speedy Trial may have been acceptable for Taproot, was not acceptable for BIP-119, but may not be optimal long term[1], and work towards processes that better captures the Bitcoin network's diverse interests and requirements. 4. Work towards thoroughly systematizing knowledge around covenant technologies so that in the coming months we may work towards delivering a coherent pathway for the Bitcoin technical community to evaluate and put up for offer to the broader community an upgrade or set of upgrades to improve Bitcoin's capabilities for self sovereignty, privacy, scalability, and decentralization. This may not be the easiest path to take, but I believe that this work is critical to the future of Bitcoin. I welcome all reading this to share your thoughts with this list on how we might work towards consensus going forward, including any criticisms of my observations and recommendations above. While I would expect nothing less than passionate debate when it comes to Bitcoin, remember that at the end of the day we all largely share a mission to make the world a freer place, even if we disagree about how we get there. Yours truly, Jeremy [0]: https://rubin.io/bitcoin/2022/04/17/next-steps-bip119/ [1]: http://r6.ca/blog/20210615T191422Z.html I quite enjoyed Roconnor's detailed post on Speedy Trial -- @JeremyRubin --0000000000001f2c9205ddfe5c92 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Developers,

There i= s much to say about the events of the last two weeks and the response to th= em. I've been searching for the right words to share here, but I think = it best that short of a more thoughtful writeup I start with a timely small= step with the below comments.

First, le= t me be clear: I am not advancing a Speedy Trial(ST) activation of Bitcoin = Improvement Proposal-119 (BIP-119) CheckTemplateVerify (CTV) at this time.<= /div>

I'm skipping any discussion of the drama here. Most of you = are interested in developing Bitcoin, not drama. Let's try to keep this= thread focused on the actual work. I'll make some limited comments on = the drama in a separate thread, for those who care to hear from me on the s= ubject directly.

I believe that the disinformation spread around my pos= t ("7 Theses on a next step for BIP-119"[0]) created three main negative outco= mes within the Bitcoin community:

1. Confusion about how= Bitcoin's "technical consensus" works and how changes are &q= uot;approved".
2. Fear about = the safety of CTV and covenants more broadly.
3. Misunderstandings around the properties of Speedy Trial, Use= r Activated Soft Fork (UASF), User Resisted Soft Fork (URSF), Soft Forks, H= ard Forks, and more.

While I cannot take responsibility for the= spread of the disinformation, I do apologize to anyone dealing with it=C2= =A0for the=C2=A0role my actions have had in leading to the current circumst= ance.

I personally take some solace in knowing that the only wa= y out of this is through it. The conversations happening now seem to have b= een more or less inevitable, this has brought them to the surface, and as a= technical community we are able to address them head on if -- as individua= ls and collectively -- we choose to. And, viewed through a certain lens, th= ese conversations represent incredibly important opportunities to participa= te in defining the future of Bitcoin that would not be happening otherwise.= Ultimately, I am grateful to live in a time where I am able to play a smal= l role in such an important process. This is the work.

In the c= oming months, I expect the discourse to be messy, but I think the work is c= lear cut that we should undertake at least the following:

1. = Make great efforts to better document how Bitcoin's technical consensus= process works today, how it can be improved, and how changes may be formal= ly reviewed while still being unofficially=C2=A0advanced.
2. Work diligently=C2=A0to address the concerns m= any in the community have around the negative potential of covenants and be= tter explain the trade-offs between levels of functionality.
3. Renew conversations about activation and rele= ase mechanisms and re-examine our priors around why Speedy Trial may have b= een acceptable for Taproot, was not acceptable for BIP-119, but may not be = optimal long term[1], and work towards processes that better captures the B= itcoin network's=C2=A0diverse interests and requirements.
4. Work towards thoroughly systematizing knowle= dge around covenant technologies so that in the coming months we may work t= owards delivering a coherent pathway for the Bitcoin technical community to= evaluate and put up for offer to the broader community an upgrade or set o= f upgrades to improve Bitcoin's capabilities for self sovereignty, priv= acy, scalability, and decentralization.

This may not be the eas= iest path to take, but I believe that this work is critical to the future o= f Bitcoin. I welcome all reading this to share your thoughts with this list= on how we might work towards consensus going forward,=C2=A0including any c= riticisms of my observations and recommendations above. While I would expec= t nothing less than passionate debate when it comes to Bitcoin, remember th= at at the end of the day we all largely share a mission to make the world a= freer place, even if we disagree about how we get there.

You= rs truly,

Jeremy

<= /div>
[= 1]: http://r6.ca/blog/2= 0210615T191422Z.html I quite enjoyed Roconnor's detailed post on Sp= eedy Trial

--0000000000001f2c9205ddfe5c92--