Re: [bitcoin-dev] Interrogating a BIP157 server, BIP158 change proposal

[Tamas Blummer <tamas.blummer@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1942 bytes --]

The attack was in your implication that I would assume  ill intent of those
contributed to the proposal. That is not my position. I explained why, I
think, rolling out a commitment could face opposition. This foreseable
opposition, that must not come from you makes me prefer a provable
uncommitted filter for now.

I am myself concerned of the implications if many nodes would blindly
follow POW.

I did restart the discussion which I read and participated in at its first
instance because implementing the current proposal taught me how
problematic as is until not committed and because I have not seen a sign to
assume commitment was imminent.

This is not just missing code. AFAIK we do not even have a consensus on how
any future soft fork would be activated.

While trying to build a useful software I have to make assumtions on the
timeline of dependencies and in my personal evaluation commitment is not
yet to build on.

I and others learned in this new discussion new arguments such as that of
atomic swaps by Laolu. If nothing else, this was worth of learning.

It appears me that it is rather you assuming ill intent on my side, which
hurts given that I do contribute to the ecosystem since many years and have
not ever been caught of hurting the project.

Tamas Blummer


On Wed, 6 Feb 2019, 20:16 Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 7:48 PM Tamas Blummer <tamas.blummer@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I do not think this ad hominem attack of you on me was justified.
>
> I apologize if I have offended you, but I am at a loss to find in my
> words you found to be an attack. Can you help me out?
>
> On reread the only thing I'm saying is that you hadn't even read the
> prior discussion. Am I mistaken?  If so, why did you simply propose
> reverting prior improvements without addressing the arguments given
> the first time around or even acknowledging that you were rehashing an
> old discussion?
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2657 bytes --]