Subject: [bitcoindev] Re: Workshops and Activation for CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY and CHECKSIGFROMSTACK

From: Antoine Riard <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2025 11:23:26 -0700 (PDT)

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

Le lundi 18 août 2025 à 15:43:54 UTC+1, /dev /fd0 a écrit :

> 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/[email-masked]/ 
> <https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/[email-masked]/>
> [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
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email-masked].
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/e0a46b30-e633-4f38-b737-a5f1973da901n%40googlegroups.com.