Good Afternoon,
The basic principle of Bitcoin is operating the consensus fungibility. All transactions are published on the public ledger. What is valuable is the consensus as we have it, not what it may become from some proposal that may harm fungibility. Without consensus Bitcoin is not what is valued by the current consensus. Consensus is exactly why Bitcoin is fungible if that can be made clear. That is why it is important to defend consensus. We have agreed Bitcoin has certain properties including being immutable, transparent, published, distributed, trustless. Consensus provides we make software to allow transfer of Bitcoin via ownership of a UTXO in a manner in accordance with consensus. If we do not value Bitcoin to defend the consensus we admin all kinds of features without purpose to complicate the operation of a wallet for a standard user. Bitcoin and the consensus is all about the standard user in order to be fungible. A valuable use-case does not approve an enhancement. Most users will never be involved in the consensus process and in the interest of being fungible all developers and the consensus must ensure their interest in a wallet being upgraded is in their beneficial interest. Making a fidget toy that can do anything is not useful until it can make the bed, cook breakfast, and pour the coffee, that is, to do something useful that a user will want.
One test of this is how many users will object if a feature is taken away.
KING JAMES HRMHGreat British Empire
Regards,The AustralianLORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British EmpireMR. Damian A. James WilliamsonWills
et al.
Willtechand other projects
m. 0487135719f. +61261470192
This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
From: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of John Carvalho via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Sent: Monday, 2 May 2022 6:37 PM
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Working Towards ConsensusJeremy,
The path to consensus is to propose things that everyone needs. Demand comes from the market, not the designers.
Designers (engineers) solve problems with designs, but when they speculate and lead the process, they create problems instead. Bitcoin is not a place for speculative feature additions. Bitcoin cannot afford a culture of additive features no one is asking for. Bitcoin thrives in a culture of "NO." Rejection of change is Bitcoin's primary feature.
There is NO HOPE of EVER getting the majority of Bitcoin users to be able to grasp, audit, and meaningfully consent to complicated new features, nor to assess how they may interact with existing features in undesirable ways or affect Bitcoin's incentive structure. To ignore this is a selfish egomania that too many devs succumb to. The public already trusts Core devs more than they probably should, and it is unwise to lean on that trust.
You are of course welcome to try and research and document all of the details about how this plays out in practice, but you will fail to specify a path to approval or any sort of clear governance structure for ensuring that speculative features get into Bitcoin. You will seek and only see a bias that allows you to get what YOU want. Until you focus on what everyone wants, you will not reach consensus on anything.
Bitcoin changes should solve obvious problems and provide easy wins on optimization, security, and privacy. Seek simplicity and efficiency, not complication.
We have yet to saturate usage of the features we have added already in the past 5 years. Use those. It is becoming apparent over time that many features can be accomplished off-chain, or without a blockchain, or by merely anchoring into currently available bitcoin transaction types.
There is simply no urgency or problem that any of the proposed soft fork features are trying to address. This includes APO, CTV, sidechain proposals, etc, etc.
Your aggression to your purpose is the antithesis of consensus, as it indicates your incentives are external to it.
On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 3:43 AM <bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Send bitcoin-dev mailing list submissions to
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
bitcoin-dev-owner@lists.linuxfoundation.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of bitcoin-dev digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: What to do when contentious soft fork activations are
attempted (Billy Tetrud)
2. Working Towards Consensus (Jeremy Rubin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 14:14:29 -0500
From: Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.com>
To: alicexbt <alicexbt@protonmail.com>, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] What to do when contentious soft fork
activations are attempted
Message-ID:
<CAGpPWDb-T4OB0NKv7O5k9yhDQJtmag1QLqM1jJN9fQMoNTPLug@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
+1 alicexbt
We of course want knowledgeable bitcoiners who aren't knowledgeable about a
certain proposal to be skeptical. But what we don't want is for that
natural skepticism-from-ignorance to be interpreted as opposition, or
really a strong signal of any kind. Any thoughts from ignorance, whether
self-aware or not, should be given small weight. It seems the vast majority
of push back has been this kind of skepticism from ignorance. And to a
certain degree I think we want to give time for understanding to those who
have not participated in the first, second, third, etc round of discussion
on a proposal. It may not be reasonable to say "you had the last 2 years of
time to voice your concern".
Now that CTV is being taken seriously as a proposal, we probably should
give the community who is finally taking a serious look at it time to
understand, get their questions answered, and come to terms with it. This
is not to say that CTV as a technology or proposal has been rushed, or has
not had enough work put into it, but rather that the community as a whole
has not paid enough attention to it for long enough.
The wrong approach is: "how do I yell more loudly next time I see something
I'm uncomfortable with?" The right approach is to educate those who aren't
educated on the proposal and gather consensus on what people think when
they understand enough about it to contribute to that consensus. If you
care about consensus, you should respect the consensus process and be ok
with consensus being not your preferred outcome. If you don't care about
consensus, then you're basically attacking the bitcoin community.
On Sun, May 1, 2022 at 3:22 AM 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, Jimmy
> 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
> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-October/019535.html>,
> 2
> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-January/019728.html>,
> 3
> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020235.html>
> 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.
>
>
> Answering the subject of this email: "What to do when contentious soft
> forks activations are attempted?"
>
> - Do not consider something contentious because someone said it on mailing
> list
> - Do not spread misinformation
> - Read all posts in detail with different opinions
> - Avoid personal attacks
> - Look at the technical details, code etc. and comment on things that
> could be improved
>
>
>
> /dev/fd0
>
> Sent with ProtonMail <https://protonmail.com/> 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?ve 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 contentious
> 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?t want to repeat this exercise again I thought I should at least 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 yet
> 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, Jimmy
> 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
> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-October/019535.html>,
> 2
> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-January/019728.html>,
> 3
> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020235.html>
> 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?m unsure on the above. I?d be interested to hear thoughts. What I am
> sure of is that it is totally unacceptable for one individual 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?re motivated to try it again every week/month. Perhaps the
> personal cost that the community is now prepared if that individual tries
> it again is sufficient. I?m not sure. Obviously Bitcoin is a permissionless
> network, Bitcoin Core and other open source projects are easily forked and
> no authority (I?m certainly no authority) can stop things like this
> happening again.
>
> I?ll follow the responses if people have thoughts (I won't be responding
> to the instigators of this contentious soft fork activation attempt) but
> other than that I?d like to move on to other things than contentious soft
> fork activations. Thanks to those who have expressed concerns publicly (too
> many to name, Bob McElrath was often wording arguments better than I could)
> and who were willing to engage with the URSF conversation. If an individual
> 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 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.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220501/7158d8ed/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 1 May 2022 19:43:29 -0700
From: Jeremy Rubin <jeremy.l.rubin@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin development mailing list
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Working Towards Consensus
Message-ID:
<CAD5xwhhdEgADWwLwbjRKp-UFCw9hHjDsc-L=pkiwW=bmhFqBNw@mail.gmail.com>
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 <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220501/9009e65d/attachment.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
------------------------------
End of bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 84, Issue 4
******************************************