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 code review comment on #31989.
Among the 5 people, only 2 were letter signatories (average-gary + stuxto).
Why the 58 other names on the letter have not 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 activation run with that.
Personally, I still think we should aim for more neutral consensus development process...
This was the intent with the bitcoin contracting primitives WG, done on an open IRC chan.
https://github.com/ariard/bitcoin-contracting-primitives-wg (can transfer you the repo ownership if you wish so)
Where rather to present a primitive proposal as a "done deal" from a "pow wow" of experts,
the goal was to create a neutral online forum for discussion open to anyone in the world
who self-estimate they qualify 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.
Best,
Antoine
OTS hash: 0d3c23682b630c9c85288ece8e1acae2f4a3c76254e16e36ccb6ca0fcef2556b
Hi everyone,
IRC channel: #ctv-csfs-activation on libera.chat
I [requested][0] the economic nodes to review different soft fork proposals and share their opinion on 5 March 2025. Four entries were added to the [wiki][1] and nobody has any objections to the proposals. 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 CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY and combines it with CHECKSIGFROMSTACK. Personally, I don't like that TEMPLATEHASH is restricted to taproot and don't see anything wrong with CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY. However, other developers may disagree with me and have different opinion. I have created an IRC channel for workshops, meetings, activation, etc.
We can finalize a meeting schedule 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 fork. [Previously][4], some suggestions were [rejected][5] because knots was not used by a large number of users. However, things have changed since then 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]: https://ctv-csfs.com/
[3]: https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/5wLThgegha4/m/iUWIZPIaCAAJ
[4]: https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/CAFvNmHS4s_MbXP8o3kWmaUZ5...@mail.gmail.com/
[5]: https://diyhpl.us/cgit/pi-bitcoindev/plain/cc/877bbc8de83e7aa4d2252a0473d05d634946b4/dev/fd0
[6]: https://bitnodes.io/nodes/?q=knots#network-snapshot
/dev/fd0
floppy disk guy