From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Delivery-date: Fri, 05 Sep 2025 09:45:10 -0700 Received: from mail-qk1-f183.google.com ([209.85.222.183]) by mail.fairlystable.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uuZYj-0000Rg-8U for bitcoindev@gnusha.org; Fri, 05 Sep 2025 09:45:10 -0700 Received: by mail-qk1-f183.google.com with SMTP id af79cd13be357-7e86499748csf782144085a.1 for ; Fri, 05 Sep 2025 09:45:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20230601; t=1757090703; x=1757695503; darn=gnusha.org; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-sender:mime-version :subject:references:in-reply-to:message-id:to:from:date:sender:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=O/4KVhEeIAeP839QrZfpnPYODvmd6mEd7JAi16tCxmI=; b=WH1MUp8P84ojzQli6pMvWy8/xfAd/8ZcTv3GUa9mdvcE7kD2gbG5yjomxJF29MxVaS Nfo6aggySG/VvD6EGXIXt5ZezhKcHbgayfXQjquCUqbYBsggXrh3raQiULKogpQov1h3 0YJhiCGkQuBJ+h/FWOOaeiwArhPBb5EtFG9w9RSNHeIHTTyfMU6iHkdWEabbZSCsnXb0 zh49/7ifKLFSwflOoxIciF7cb31DltMKq9h+XmswQ6rT1B4fJpNTILEcmAKO2zDgl3sN n96MkUD4DJcW7znLmlcGoaudXth7LyDYRikipj87bFUws60N6xJI8arQSUlWHZ+kYCEV lfPg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1757090703; x=1757695503; darn=gnusha.org; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-sender:mime-version :subject:references:in-reply-to:message-id:to:from:date:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=O/4KVhEeIAeP839QrZfpnPYODvmd6mEd7JAi16tCxmI=; b=nqvZ+HQ8mprTmtn4rOfD5jPeyxVzh94korkEJoH61GB9vgNghNFE1NCQhgmaAn6hM9 WTJFa3lpitUMWq3vpqjRuIovvxmciexIgxAtO55xUj5/AghFVbfgTMoFvSTuP5SkCqYj Vay8BRO9NoZKiSR+w3nsmdwxOKrCrmwg2HuQ6V8IMdZkHHBPV0vQrGk1FOztAGWFtK+A Fw9A1KwQQtlhAvJgKySC58SzT02Vp1swdf78hNwVH67VITWa0rcob6MeASCiouqpayJp g7wNNYKeTAnMEAI+BW1PZ0DoVsNU1AAWWK3tYDbPT1tphSBhU7cewzw0ZbuebtLhaV4A 7AqA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1757090703; x=1757695503; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-sender:mime-version :subject:references:in-reply-to:message-id:to:from:date:x-beenthere :x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=O/4KVhEeIAeP839QrZfpnPYODvmd6mEd7JAi16tCxmI=; b=K79mvxLkXwakhMJ8yDrr/2QhnUSz7yMgcZW31PQwhGahUiSPkFnzDGIP/YRsgJljx6 G9jwCCnJD5d8+Oe7ksbCb348QUhUDXdnoi7bLsH1cpNBxpw3d4ovWJSISf6WRU1Yf5Nu 0SqgZ+LFVXCTZgQIxRAQZZ6QMS6qXaatQdNsS0UlSWl0wu/o2qYLEuKyNHfEeuGdWe2I qR3XwX66gQl08TfxtZ0Qp0rI64vWyAuGnBJJeFQy14TLmI8cnKatE6igvzFLQWPLu/Zu Z24XYCXbzN5W7qxF947oD5C3mYXIrCjRsEdmYDkgl/GG1E/nE8M7UnBf19oN01/gNJfS 4Sig== Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXoRD36KDO/MlHe0QeXNMM9SyDfx+e9C/yjMMvOc21KVV6ak0XI5Z92unbWNrU6UToJ5QQMyHaGCeVT@gnusha.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw8V0ce4wzJTTLzEQXf8LY8h3XXqud09IEWj3dXUreqjiZfXbpE DnK9BE9RKkZlr4AGLH4f6QtB/3myvwbyLgTAw4e1wM5qbgW8AuZppnTv X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IESywoZSeMhUAX00NP8RUmoWPGt3V9ncvPMjwymQuxcQAExm2J9hbIphgIKZwgQNdzVAziD7Q== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:371c:b0:807:2bb5:7466 with SMTP id af79cd13be357-8109be47738mr474604285a.33.1757090702385; Fri, 05 Sep 2025 09:45:02 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; h=AZMbMZcxqFd5GUzBumTG4aPc55VEp7HHhNEMJD9aIPUnflXFdw== Received: by 2002:ad4:5c63:0:b0:70d:9e42:dc8f with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-72d1a69bd12ls15171586d6.0.-pod-prod-07-us; Fri, 05 Sep 2025 09:44:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:7009:b0:7fe:c33c:3510 with SMTP id af79cd13be357-7ff27b20240mr2651966285a.19.1757090698462; Fri, 05 Sep 2025 09:44:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 2002:a05:690c:8d13:b0:71b:f426:a5b0 with SMTP id 00721157ae682-7213fc92c16ms7b3; Wed, 27 Aug 2025 10:13:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:680c:b0:719:f582:be17 with SMTP id 00721157ae682-71fdc3ce3ddmr242189047b3.35.1756314815712; Wed, 27 Aug 2025 10:13:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2025 10:13:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Antoine Riard To: Bitcoin Development Mailing List Message-Id: <7f7c8320-0d14-4826-9501-0d257eab72a4n@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: References: Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] Re: Workshops and Activation for CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY and CHECKSIGFROMSTACK MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_120266_886706803.1756314815378" X-Original-Sender: antoine.riard@gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 786775582512 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) ------=_Part_120266_886706803.1756314815378 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_120267_613041898.1756314815378" ------=_Part_120267_613041898.1756314815378 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Floppy, Yeah, I mean it would be nice for the letter signatories to have also put their code review along their tag names... Most of the time consensus changes are a bit more complex than "yes" or "no" or "good" vs "evil" and I do understand the recrimination of my fella bitcoin core hackers on the nonsense that this kind of letter can lead to... I do remember the Buck O'Perley comments here [0], that a gathering of all the technical opinions could be welcome to let the wider community, beyond the narrow "powwow" of the developers, makes its own opinion on consensus= =20 changes. In that spirit, in my view it would have been better for each letter=20 signatory to explain the technical reasons, trade-offs they see, why they think CTV i= s technically solid, etc on their personal blog post or something else... Anyway, I did concept ACK the BIP119 code branch (for the reasons=20 explained): https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31989#issuecomment-3218427453 I'm not going to die on a hill for CTV to happen, but I won't also won't die on a hill for CTV _not_ to happen. So officially, I'm in the "bored" camp of devs on the CTV discussion. I was there when its original author presented it to the world back in 2019= , and since then and so far I cannot find reasons how CTV is a technical=20 hazard for the bitcoin network (see more caveats in my comment). Personally, I'm= =20 not excited for it, though as a developer engaging in consensus changes, if=20 there are enough developers and stakeholders in the ecosystem who wish it, I'm=20 fine with it. Nice, for the IRC meetings, and yes I have memory of the taproot workshop it was good, I don't think I'll be able to join the IRC meetings, though if there are transcripts I'll try to keep an eye on it. Best, Antoine OTS hash: 87dfdb18a8a6abca5a0e4bc8b56da4d11fe0b9bd797fbb02aa8e497377637b98 [0]=20 https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/BQjnkZZajHKYBOUFAin8toHgNHhG346VUR4GQx6bSi= 2ftOuNTK1c1d4LWN4Zmr0tUg2w3xgtIZJSphBORYgWw4PPXq5pGFoZJk2Lx6AokuQ=3D@proton= mail.com/ Le vendredi 22 ao=C3=BBt 2025 =C3=A0 23:05:48 UTC+1, /dev /fd0 a =C3=A9crit= : > Hi Antoine, > > > > Why the 58 other names on the letter have not spent _their_ _free_ tim= e=20 > reviewing more CTV code ? > > Some of them have reviewed CTV earlier in other pull requests and others= =20 > could be application developers who are interested in the use cases. > > > > https://github.com/ariard/bitcoin-contracting-primitives-wg (can=20 > transfer you the repo ownership if you wish so) > > Thanks for sharing the link. I found the [taproot workshops][0] repositor= y=20 > useful as well. I will create a new repository for CTV-CSFS workshops,=20 > meetings etc. to document everything. > > Workshop #1 > > Time: 28 August 2025 15:00 UTC > Channel: #ctv-csfs-activation on libera.chat > > - Review and understand [BIP 119][1] > - Create basic CTV transactions on signet > > [0]: https://github.com/bitcoinops/taproot-workshop > [1]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0119.mediawiki > > /dev/fd0 > floppy disk guy > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 5:37=E2=80=AFAM Antoine Riard wrote: > >> Hi Floppy, >> >> The call to review CTV has been published Jun. 9. >> >> On this letter, I can count ~60 names. >> >> Since the time of publication (2 months after), only 5 people have put a= =20 >> code review comment on #31989. >> >> Among the 5 people, only 2 were letter signatories (average-gary +=20 >> stuxto). >> >> Why the 58 other names on the letter have not spent _their_ _free_ time= =20 >> reviewing more CTV code ? >> >> ... >> >> Now, of course anyone is free to patch CTV on top of knot and go to try= =20 >> the activation run with that. >> >> Personally, I still think we should aim for more neutral consensus=20 >> development process... >> >> This was the intent with the bitcoin contracting primitives WG, done on= =20 >> an open IRC chan. >> >> https://github.com/ariard/bitcoin-contracting-primitives-wg (can=20 >> transfer you the repo ownership if you wish so) >> >> Where rather to present a primitive proposal as a "done deal" from a "po= w=20 >> wow" of experts, >> the goal was to create a neutral online forum for discussion open to=20 >> anyone in the world >> who self-estimate they qualify as an expert on bitcoin consensus...and= =20 >> humbly trying to >> do better than the mess of the 2015 - 2017 period w.r.t consensus change= s. >> >> Best, >> Antoine >> OTS hash: 0d3c23682b630c9c85288ece8e1acae2f4a3c76254e16e36ccb6ca0fcef255= 6b >> >> Le lundi 18 ao=C3=BBt 2025 =C3=A0 15:43:54 UTC+1, /dev /fd0 a =C3=A9crit= : >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> IRC channel: #ctv-csfs-activation on libera.chat >>> >>> I [requested][0] the economic nodes to review different soft fork=20 >>> proposals and share their opinion on 5 March 2025. Four entries were ad= ded=20 >>> to the [wiki][1] and nobody has any objections to the proposals. Some= =20 >>> organizations do not want to publicly participate in this process to av= oid=20 >>> politics and drama. >>> >>> A [letter][2] was signed on 9 June 2025 by bitcoin developers to get=20 >>> more core contributors involved in the review process. It was followed = by a=20 >>> [proposal][3] that makes a few changes to CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY and combi= nes=20 >>> it with CHECKSIGFROMSTACK. Personally, I don't like that TEMPLATEHASH i= s=20 >>> restricted to taproot and don't see anything wrong with=20 >>> CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY. However, other developers may disagree with me and= =20 >>> have different opinion. I have created an IRC channel for workshops,=20 >>> meetings, activation, etc.=20 >>> >>> We can finalize a meeting schedule so we can use the IRC channel to mov= e=20 >>> closer to covenants activation on bitcoin. >>> >>> I think BIP 8 would be a better option for the next soft fork.=20 >>> [Previously][4], some suggestions were [rejected][5] because knots was = not=20 >>> used by a large number of users. However, things have changed since the= n=20 >>> and [~15%][6] of nodes use knots for bitcoin. >>> >>> [0]: https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/kd8g8V1NVOY/m/nE2y5V66AQA= J >>> [1]: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Covenants_support >>> [2]: https://ctv-csfs.com/ >>> [3]: https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/5wLThgegha4/m/iUWIZPIaCAA= J >>> [4]:=20 >>> https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/CAFvNmHS4s_MbXP8o3kWmaUZ5...@mail.gmai= l.com/=20 >>> >>> [5]:=20 >>> https://diyhpl.us/cgit/pi-bitcoindev/plain/cc/877bbc8de83e7aa4d2252a047= 3d05d634946b4/dev/fd0 >>> [6]: https://bitnodes.io/nodes/?q=3Dknots#network-snapshot >>> >>> /dev/fd0 >>> floppy disk guy >>> >> --=20 >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group= s=20 >> "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send a= n=20 >> email to bitcoindev+...@googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion visit=20 >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/e0a46b30-e633-4f38-b737-a5f= 1973da901n%40googlegroups.com=20 >> >> . >> > --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/= 7f7c8320-0d14-4826-9501-0d257eab72a4n%40googlegroups.com. ------=_Part_120267_613041898.1756314815378 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Floppy,
Yeah, I mean it would be nice for the letter signatories to have alsoput their code review along their tag names... Most of the time consensu= s
changes are a bit more complex than "yes" or "no" or "good" vs "evil= " and
I do understand the recrimination of my fella bitcoin core hacke= rs on
the nonsense that this kind of letter can lead to...

= I do remember the Buck O'Perley comments here [0], that a gathering of all<= br />the technical opinions could be welcome to let the wider community, be= yond
the narrow "powwow" of the developers, makes its own opinion on c= onsensus changes.
In that spirit, in my view it would have been better= for each letter signatory
to explain the technical reasons, trade-off= s they see, why they think CTV is
technically solid, etc on their pers= onal blog post or something else...

Anyway, I did concept ACK th= e BIP119 code branch (for the reasons explained):
https://github.com/b= itcoin/bitcoin/pull/31989#issuecomment-3218427453

I'm not going = to die on a hill for CTV to happen, but I won't also won't
die on a hi= ll for CTV _not_ to happen. So officially, I'm in the "bored"
camp of = devs on the CTV discussion.

I was there when its original author= presented it to the world back in 2019,
and since then and so far I c= annot find reasons how CTV is a technical hazard
for the bitcoin netwo= rk (see more caveats in my comment). Personally, I'm not
excited for i= t, though as a developer engaging in consensus changes, if there
are e= nough developers and stakeholders in the ecosystem who wish it, I'm finewith it.

Nice, for the IRC meetings, and yes I have memory of= the taproot
workshop it was good, I don't think I'll be able to join = the IRC
meetings, though if there are transcripts I'll try to keep an = eye
on it.

Best,
Antoine
OTS hash: 87dfdb18a8a6ab= ca5a0e4bc8b56da4d11fe0b9bd797fbb02aa8e497377637b98

[0] https://g= nusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/BQjnkZZajHKYBOUFAin8toHgNHhG346VUR4GQx6bSi2ftOuNTK1= c1d4LWN4Zmr0tUg2w3xgtIZJSphBORYgWw4PPXq5pGFoZJk2Lx6AokuQ=3D@protonmail.com/=

Le ve= ndredi 22 ao=C3=BBt 2025 =C3=A0 23:05:48 UTC+1, /dev /fd0 a =C3=A9crit=C2= =A0:
Hi Antoine,


> =C2=A0Why the 58 ot= her names on the letter have not spent _their_ _free_ time reviewing more C= TV code ?

Some of them have reviewed CTV earl= ier in other pull requests and others could be application developers who a= re interested in the use cases.

On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 5:37=E2=80=AFAM Antoine Riard <antoin...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Floppy,

The call to review CTV has been published= Jun. 9.

On this letter, I can count ~60 names.

Since the tim= e of publication (2 months after), only 5 people have put a code review com= ment on #31989.

Among the 5 people, only 2 were letter signatories (= average-gary + stuxto).

Why the 58 other names on the letter have no= t spent _their_ _free_ time reviewing more CTV code ?

...

Now= , of course anyone is free to patch CTV on top of knot and go to try the ac= tivation run with that.

Personally, I still think we should aim for = more neutral consensus development process...

This was the intent wi= th the bitcoin contracting primitives WG, done on an open IRC chan.

= https://github.com/ariard/bitcoin-contracting-primitive= s-wg (can transfer you the repo ownership if you wish so)

Where = rather to present a primitive proposal as a "done deal" from a &q= uot;pow wow" of experts,
the goal was to create a neutral online fo= rum for discussion open to anyone in the world
who self-estimate they qu= alify as an expert on bitcoin consensus...and humbly trying to
do better= than the mess of the 2015 - 2017 period w.r.t consensus changes.

Be= st,
Antoine
OTS hash: 0d3c23682b630c9c85288ece8e1acae2f4a3c76254e16e3= 6ccb6ca0fcef2556b

Le lundi 18 ao=C3=BBt 2025 =C3=A0 15:43:54 UTC+1, /dev /fd0= a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:
Hi everyone,

IRC channel: #ctv-csfs-activation= on libera.chat

I [requested][0] the economic nodes to review differ= ent soft fork proposals and share their opinion on 5 March 2025. Four entri= es were added to the [wiki][1] and nobody has any objections to the proposa= ls. Some organizations do not want to publicly participate in this process = to avoid politics and drama.

A [letter][2] was signed on 9 June 2025= by bitcoin developers to get more core contributors involved in the review= process. It was followed by a [proposal][3] that makes a few changes to CH= ECKTEMPLATEVERIFY and combines it with CHECKSIGFROMSTACK. Personally, I don= 't like that TEMPLATEHASH is restricted to taproot and don't see an= ything wrong with CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY. However, other developers may disagr= ee with me and have different opinion. I have created an IRC channel for wo= rkshops, meetings, activation, etc.

We can finalize a meeting sched= ule so we can use the IRC channel to move closer to covenants activation on= bitcoin.

I think BIP 8 would be a better option for the next soft f= ork. [Previously][4], some suggestions were [rejected][5] because knots was= not used by a large number of users. However, things have changed since th= en and [~15%][6] of nodes use knots for bitcoin.

[0]: https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/kd8g8V1NVOY/= m/nE2y5V66AQAJ
[1]: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Covenants_support
[2]: <= a href=3D"https://ctv-csfs.com/" rel=3D"nofollow" target=3D"_blank" data-sa= feredirecturl=3D"https://www.google.com/url?hl=3Dfr&q=3Dhttps://ctv-csf= s.com/&source=3Dgmail&ust=3D1756401054930000&usg=3DAOvVaw1Ohtlx= DYun9I2htSYPNrnB">https://ctv-csfs.com/
[3]: https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/5wLThgegha4/m/iUWIZPI= aCAAJ
[4]: https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoind= ev/CAFvNmHS4s_MbXP8o3kWmaUZ5...@mail.gmail.com/
[5]: http= s://diyhpl.us/cgit/pi-bitcoindev/plain/cc/877bbc8de83e7aa4d2252a0473d05d634= 946b4/dev/fd0
[6]:=C2=A0https://bitnodes.io/nodes/?q=3Dkno= ts#network-snapshot

/dev/fd0
floppy disk guy

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bitcoindev+...@googlegro= ups.com.
To view this discussion visit https= ://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/e0a46b30-e633-4f38-b737-a5f1973da90= 1n%40googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bitcoind= ev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoind= ev/7f7c8320-0d14-4826-9501-0d257eab72a4n%40googlegroups.com.
------=_Part_120267_613041898.1756314815378-- ------=_Part_120266_886706803.1756314815378--