On Sun, May 1, 2022, 09:22 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 > , > 2 > , > 3 > > 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. > Clueless and spreading disinformation, you say? What misinformation, could you explain? > - Avoid personal attacks > Could accusing someone of apreading misinformation without prove and calling him clueless be considered a personal attack? What do we do with hypocrites and liars? People who knowingly lie to push their own agenda, how do we protect against those? > /dev/fd0 > > Sent with ProtonMail 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 > , > 2 > , > 3 > > 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 >