From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3CA0C002D for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2022 17:06:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8F2E41B87 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2022 17:06:54 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org A8F2E41B87 Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mattcorallo.com header.i=@mattcorallo.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=1663346462 header.b=Q0YQUDKM; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=clients.mail.as397444.net header.i=@clients.mail.as397444.net header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=1663346463 header.b=XR6WxZbX X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.102 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.102 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, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 KJpYnKTS8XO4 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2022 17:06:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:19:50 by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org EA34741B75 Received: from mail.as397444.net (mail.as397444.net [69.59.18.99]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA34741B75 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2022 17:06:52 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mattcorallo.com; s=1663346462; h=In-Reply-To:From:References:To:Subject: From:Subject:To:Cc:Cc:Reply-To; bh=D0gjBJxJ5xpQnR1SJb6fgwq6yyXsYgOQueKM+ASjZyI=; b=Q0YQUDKMzaesa4/EQCyKe3jJeX LBLynuJOR9LCeCDQJrqOGgraGNzD3nVrYlVeqfAyKM4PiUw6QrVCxymFUYUFkiDN98rfv2ZUh0I/R NPatLL29jErMAhn66oB4URFELtzjw7akpMjL7dpV3ASy6oTwmT1HAWrINz4nTBoxfwXiLoQGrcIvb grKXvsNOzettaJpG/hHJ9cxXaCFSKCNfFhKhJTXt1BBJFo4kH6vfHvh+FOklUlZ4OLhj1M7nM8DPT FzwWBeNnfAFEHuXZP+YBK/uNpnTFa4/edvhCssCwUZmjfjrEQpY1/lylYgZMUS+FBIGN8n4O/Pa1F NwIinp8A==; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=clients.mail.as397444.net; s=1663346463; h=In-Reply-To:From:References:To: Subject:From:Subject:To:Cc:Cc:Reply-To; bh=D0gjBJxJ5xpQnR1SJb6fgwq6yyXsYgOQueKM+ASjZyI=; b=XR6WxZbXis8SrBgSP77f9M4DMY x5q2E+/jlgHSsZ8A9DPqcbkCqbvY82y/JYXNqNYTQrFJwSAtm+Nj47LWNqYsBwHaufkh/NY9OtOEo YDLC99cvjHtLVKWV9W8pMIg4w2GW73SJZAkAbb/6XvMdLJAulwIfk43upTm5s8izHcZrKRquJiYCg uaK7popvPHqHy3qtm0Yfd0/euKo7bDiZVu63QJqlYuqNkOFz/OLraQlRcp/s0hXN+GXFdie4A4XtI LvT6YSz35pHYaikesGrOtdQ2nr+0JwwG20M3En/7Qjv1adkjkKgEBcbZDE791jD2N9Y1QIGYtBF4V VtUc/bYQ==; Received: by mail.as397444.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) (Exim) (envelope-from ) id 1oZEUT-003mbQ-1w; Fri, 16 Sep 2022 16:46:57 +0000 Message-ID: <798e8c4a-78e2-b210-2202-4b358b95a581@mattcorallo.com> Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2022 12:46:53 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Anthony Towns , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion References: From: Matt Corallo In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-DKIM-Note: Keys used to sign are likely public at https://as397444.net/dkim/mattcorallo.com X-DKIM-Note: For more info, see https://as397444.net/dkim/ Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin-inquistion: evaluating soft forks on signet 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: Fri, 16 Sep 2022 17:06:55 -0000 Apologies for any typos, somewhat jet-lagged atm. On 9/16/22 3:15 AM, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Subhead: "Nobody expects a Bitcoin Inquistion? C'mon man, *everyone* > expects a Bitcoin Inquisition." > > As we've seen from the attempt at a CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY activation earlier > in the year [0], the question of "how to successfully get soft fork > ideas from concept to deployment" doesn't really have a good answer today. I strongly disagree with this. Going back many, many years we've had many discussions about fork process, and the parts people (historically) agreed with tend to be: (1) come up with an idea (2) socialize the idea in the technical community, see if anyone comes up with any major issues or can suggest better ideas which solve the same use-cases in cleaner ways (3) propose the concrete idea with a more well-defined strawman, socialize that, get some kind of rough consensus in the loosely-defined, subjective, "technical community" (ie just ask people and adapt to feedback until you have found some kind of average of the opinions of people you, the fork-champion, think are reasonably well-informed!). (4) okay, admittedly beyond this is a bit less defined, but we can deal with it when we get there. Turns out, the issue today is a lack of champions following steps 1-3, we can debate what the correct answer is to step (4) once we actually have people who want to be champions who are willing to (humbly) push an idea forward towards rough agreement of the world of technical bitcoiners (without which I highly doubt you'd ever see broader-community consensus). Matt