I'm a bit confused here. The "personal blog" in question was sent to this list with an archive link and you saw an replied to it. The proposal to make an alternative path hadn't gotten buy in sufficient from those iterating, and given the propensity of people to blow things out of proportion in this list, I wanted to be sure a follow up plan carried some buy before wider dissemination. On Tue, Apr 26, 2022, 6:53 AM Michael Folkson wrote: > Jeremy > > > The reason there was not a mailing list post is because that's not a > committed plan, it was offered up for discussion to a public working group > for feedback as a potential plan. > > In the interests of posterity from your personal blog on April 17th [1]: > > "Within a week from today, you’ll find software builds for a CTV Bitcoin > Client for all platforms linked here: > > - Mac OSX TODO: > - Windows TODO: > - Linux TODO: > > These will be built using GUIX, which are reproducible for verification." > > Doesn't sound to me that this was being "offered up for discussion". A > week from April 17th would have been Sunday April 24th (2 days ago). > Readers of this mailing list would have had no idea of these plans. > > ​> You've inaccurately informed the list on something no one has > communicated committed intent for. > > I'll let readers assess from the above who is accurately informing the > mailing list and who is using personal blog posts and messaging apps to > give a completely different impression to one set of people versus readers > of this mailing list. > > I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume incompetence > rather than malice but when it comes to potential chain splits it doesn't > really matter which it is. It has the same effect and poses the same > network risk. If and when you try something like this again I hope this is > remembered. > > The Binance hack rollback suggestion, the NACKing then coin flip > suggestion on Taproot activation and now this. It seems like this trillion > dollar industry is a joke to you. I know we aren't supposed to get personal > on this mailing list but honestly if you are going to continue with these > stunts I'd rather you do them on a different blockchain. > > [1]: https://rubin.io/bitcoin/2022/04/17/next-steps-bip119/ > > -- > Michael Folkson > Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com > Keybase: michaelfolkson > PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3 > > ------- Original Message ------- > On Tuesday, April 26th, 2022 at 6:48 AM, Jeremy Rubin < > jeremy.l.rubin@gmail.com> wrote: > > The reason there was not a mailing list post is because that's not a > committed plan, it was offered up for discussion to a public working group > for feedback as a potential plan. You've inaccurately informed the list on > something no one has communicated committed intent for. This was an > alternative discussed in the telegram messaging app but did not seem to > strike the correct balance so was not furthered. > > I was hoping to be able to share something back to this list sooner rather > than later, but I have not been able to get, among those interested to > discuss in that venue, coherence on a best next step. I communicated > inasmuch on the bird app > https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin/status/1518347793903017984 > https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin/status/1518477022439247872, but do not > have a clear next step and am pouring over all the fantastic feedback I > received so far. > > Further, you're representing the state of affairs as if there's a great > need to scramble to generate software for this, whereas there already are > scripts to support a URSF that work with the source code I pointed to from > my blog. This approach is a decent one, even though it requires two things, > because it is simple. I think it's important that people keep this in mind > because that is not a joke, the intention was that the correct set of check > and balance tools were made available. I'd be eager to learn what, > specifically, you think the advantages are of a separate binary release > rather than a binary + script that can handle both cases? I'm asking > sincerely because I would make the modifications to the release I prepared > to support that as well, if they do not entail substantial technical risk. > Personally, were I aligned with your preferences, I'd be testing the forkd > script and making sure it is easy to use as the simplest and most effective > way to achieve your ends. > > regards, > > Jeremy > > -- > @JeremyRubin > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 3:44 PM Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> The latest I'm hearing (this mailing list appears to be being bypassed in >> favor of personal blogs and messaging apps) is that Speedy Trial miner >> signaling for the contentious CTV soft fork is no longer going to start on >> May 5th (as previously communicated [1]) and may instead now start around >> August 1st 2022. >> >> Hence for now the drama seems to have been averted. I am deeply skeptical >> that in the next 3 months this soft fork activation attempt will obtain >> community consensus and will no longer be contentious (although I guess >> theoretically it is possible). As a result I suspect we'll be in the exact >> same situation with a URSF effort required 2-3 months down the line. >> >> If we are I'll try to keep the mailing list informed. It is important >> there is transparency and ample time to research and prepare before making >> decisions on what software to run. Obviously I have no control over what >> others choose to do. Please don't be rushed into running things you don't >> understand the implications of and please only signal for a soft fork if >> you are convinced it has community consensus (what should precede signaling >> as it did for Taproot) and you are ready to activate a soft fork. >> >> [1]: https://rubin.io/bitcoin/2022/04/17/next-steps-bip119/ >> >> -- >> Michael Folkson >> Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com >> Keybase: michaelfolkson >> PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3 >> >> ------- Original Message ------- >> On Saturday, April 23rd, 2022 at 11:03 AM, Michael Folkson via >> bitcoin-dev wrote: >> >> As I said in my post: >> >> "If you care about Bitcoin's consensus rules I'd request you pay >> attention so you can make an informed view on what to run and what to >> support." >> >> Ideally everyone would come to an informed view independently. >> Unfortunately many people don't have the time to follow Bitcoin drama 24/7 >> and hence struggle to separate noise from signal. In this case simple >> heuristics are better than nothing. One heuristic is to listen to those in >> the past who showed good judgment and didn't seek to misinform. Of course >> it is an imperfect heuristic. Ideally the community would be given >> sufficient time to come to an informed view independently on what software >> to run and not be rushed into making decisions. But it appears they are not >> being afforded that luxury. >> >> > I fear you risk losing respect in the community >> >> I appreciate your concern. >> >> -- >> Michael Folkson >> Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com >> Keybase: michaelfolkson >> PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3 >> >> ------- Original Message ------- >> On Saturday, April 23rd, 2022 at 6:10 AM, Billy Tetrud < >> billy.tetrud@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > assuming people pay attention and listen to the individuals who were >> trusted during that period >> >> Bitcoin is not run by a group of authorities of olde. By asking people to >> trust "those.. around in 2015-2017" you're asking people to blindly trust >> authorities. This, in my strong opinion, goes against the bitcoin ethos, >> and is an incredibly harmful way to push for your agenda. I'd very much >> recommend you reassess the way you're going about what you're trying to do. >> I fear you risk losing respect in the community by implying without any >> evidence that certain people are "taking advantage" of some situation and >> attempting "to confuse". >> >> On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 12:33 PM Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >>> If the next few weeks go how I fear they will it could get messy. If you >>> care about Bitcoin's consensus rules I'd request you pay attention so you >>> can make an informed view on what to run and what to support. For those of >>> you who were around in 2015-2017 you'll know what to expect. The right >>> outcome endured in 2017 and I'm sure the right outcome will endure here >>> assuming people pay attention and listen to the individuals who were >>> trusted during that period. There are always a large number of motivated >>> parties who are incentivized to break nodes off from Bitcoin and may seek >>> to take advantage of a contentious soft fork activation attempt. >>> >>> Remember that if all the information is presented to users in a clear >>> way well ahead of time then they can make their own mind up. I fear that >>> things will be made as convoluted as possible in a way intended to confuse >>> and information will be withheld until the last minute. When in doubt it is >>> generally better to rely on the status quo and tried and trusted. In this >>> case that would be Bitcoin Core. Alternative releases such as those seeking >>> to attempt to activate CTV or indeed those seeking to resist the activation >>> of CTV really should only be considered if you are informed on exactly what >>> you are running. >>> >>> If you are interested in the effort to resist the contentious soft fork >>> activation attempt of CTV please join ##ursf on Libera IRC. >>> >>> Have a good weekend. Hopefully those behind this contentious soft fork >>> activation attempt will see sense and we can go back to more productive >>> things than resisting contentious soft forks. >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > >