From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CC89C002D for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 00:03:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64F0F403F5 for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 00:03:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 j-CNYQfDGwO7 for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 00:03:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-vs1-f46.google.com (mail-vs1-f46.google.com [209.85.217.46]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CAC6403CA for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 00:03:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vs1-f46.google.com with SMTP id i186so21180481vsc.9 for ; Wed, 08 Jun 2022 17:03:44 -0700 (PDT) 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; bh=9Gju7g0OAF6CA2nVkOxjWtfEh/exBrpN9yXKEwabwcU=; b=SWkN446RlPRKgaDghp5RsNe1Q8sMAD5f1vsmuBSxL2sClqZ10honDcPzrtN1bIUaPh 1x/wL7zD3TBS+xMUZSOoRst7eh2VHdGtGIY9qV6z8OwNT5qKIUZXKa7DpfURpF+29fNC z2BdRf7V+Q7GGXSzYL2DaWK5CLZGkuoQCZbq96RHg9mTu7B5+1bMwICnT4w2oNYgOVU5 cOe6L4531GPkOhueTuNhiZ62Jq3ay6/4/v+5HwxyHqkel7sDU9BaF7dtLIuS+Mrpiwv7 1vLM2tbU9Bfri79j4uimybZJqDSxCRmnN26nE8itNXu9SYfQJg9jJAZ9LRcy5BasGas3 9PIg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531ThmCEKrJjIjUQy3U50WOWUIO7m4XOWJziLylUDOf5hTAutTFG 8nZxODMeJRLMAmWHgkRFu8G/A/G5z5fC0Uo47SYELAWWCUeBI1DP X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzlWEzl/q9dBIlWao4DslDI2GgisG42hJGkVAdJjN1QWicGPGKcJM3QkioWbt65BQyyJTN7kxTQa//OJ3vVR3Y= X-Received: by 2002:a67:1943:0:b0:34b:8b6a:2329 with SMTP id 64-20020a671943000000b0034b8b6a2329mr15879517vsz.5.1654733023074; Wed, 08 Jun 2022 17:03:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Ryan Grant Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2022 00:03:07 +0000 Message-ID: To: alicexbt , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable 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: Thu, 09 Jun 2022 00:03:45 -0000 I think Jorge's request for specifics is reasonable. I agree that we can raise the level of discussion. Each claim about how good or bad a specific BIP is should say why on the technical merits. Comments on prior claims may expose misinformation, expose "trust me" authority, or point out other fallacies. They should include a citation of the original source, a fair restatement of the problematic claim for current readers, and a short explanation of why it doesn't advance understanding technical consensus. There have been lots of mean comments. Some "Truth and Reconciliation" will come due, and it will be a huge amount of work. Another history book?