From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0B17C002D for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 09:06:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCBB960B1D for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 09:06:21 +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: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T5eqyRUHbT9L for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 09:06:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-il1-x132.google.com (mail-il1-x132.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::132]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F24260774 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 09:06:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-il1-x132.google.com with SMTP id o5so8924272ils.11 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 02:06:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=WvF09wUYBKpl1e6+Z0KCbXANOpE1usZ+f0sGQd/EuUU=; b=aPs2GgksxAN5O1i0piEIDrvEs/jZpDJcU3X0465Fdl7fHpA06lhnzlDJv/773WTIfW ZOlpbVydFH37kbEeHcF6ZSNatGZhLRMmDhf505P8FW3Vu/rqpwot3hYH27A6s4ClWzpz 1E6LPzTdPkR/rf7soz3r30mMEAP2mQ40mXwBKE2qJy8ofk9//H4OCbVlbSeNwey5ZJkj 1F3bFjSTCiM/mXZeOI1FN3mY3orcNfk7O82mfOemFwnIm20cZmXuaiBFh7p2J2qiV1dn bl4jrNMu1G9SLaWvSraVw2KVdznMJF/erVSahdxz88JQcTlrJ+022r47F2kde/9mJ5BI Hd+Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=WvF09wUYBKpl1e6+Z0KCbXANOpE1usZ+f0sGQd/EuUU=; b=IqYwhwROHRTRNFIH8xeNBIFr9v8SWew5DS8os4PfIlJtEG9OAI9AY2KTvXVSaljv1t 5V0NNYjI3VjLqV8HM+BoGhamLBu3/2bOf4bInQKDKE5vV+058TJkzQUUuTHCNX4Zhsdv MBmu+ITV28l66/Sh/3SoteYq4jtjOt6PnC6+U1dqKA4B4B/AA3xucPCAfze+nrx5HOet imqx4B2XA1HMG/BYhmjb7vwuHlcc6Vaow4rZ5tNw3fE8qkn2AIpgoEkgJc8rzwCWDTSp 4gqlYa+bGpKU2PoapBQcC7SJL9pSIEIP4EPD/W6rLQG96RmIu7Ih1tab8ylKKccwYIBr 5AXg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530OP2l2c5GZyKi1tYNTJxBQ1rVAnYgvAxbYO8XK5+fgykWWd0Fk O8XVn0xtK97wPq1aH8psc8+A2yG4wg4hnA9+T5A= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwCbuIBb/esojehKXLT7qhP5jPOu9mM9447vEwtbgGOsMePKLgfzv2wqn0HsHUZDkgLUkEbgtTgmWB/gxPQ+7k= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1d04:b0:2cc:4c42:9b99 with SMTP id i4-20020a056e021d0400b002cc4c429b99mr6072082ila.168.1650877580237; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 02:06:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Zac Greenwood Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 11:06:09 +0200 Message-ID: To: ZmnSCPxj Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bce09f05dd76e373" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 10:36:12 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] User Resisted Soft Fork for CTV 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, 25 Apr 2022 09:06:21 -0000 --000000000000bce09f05dd76e373 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 at 07:36, ZmnSCPxj wrote CTV *can* benefit layer 2 users, which is why I switched from vaguely > apathetic to CTV, to vaguely supportive of it. Other proposals exist that also benefit L2 solutions. What makes you support CTV specifically? Centrally documenting the implications of each side by side and point by point might be a useful next step. This would enable a larger part of the community to understand each proposal and may reduce repetition and misunderstandings on this list. Once a common understanding of the implications of each proposal is in place, their tradeoffs can be considered, facilitating creating consensus on which proposal benefits a maximum of users. Zac --000000000000bce09f05dd76e373 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 at 07:36, ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> wrote

CTV *can* benefit layer 2 users, which is why I switched from = vaguely apathetic to CTV, to vaguely supportive of it.

Other proposals exist that also benef= it L2 solutions. What makes you support CTV specifically?

Centrally documenting the implications of= each side by side and point by point might be a useful next step. This wou= ld enable a larger part of the community to understand each proposal and ma= y reduce repetition and misunderstandings on this list.

Once a common understanding of the implicat= ions of each proposal is in place, their tradeoffs can be considered, facil= itating creating consensus on which proposal benefits a maximum of users.

Zac
=C2=A0
--000000000000bce09f05dd76e373--