> What I _would_ oppose is a Python based alternative implementation and activation client like co-signer Paul Sztorc proposed.[3]

I have done no such thing.

The bip300301_enforcer is in rust [0]. Furthermore, it is not an "alternative" to Core -- it must connect to Bitcoin Core, via ZMQ. (But it is an "activation client" -- of a kind.)

(Anyone who glanced at the github for 2 seconds, would see all of these things, by the way.)
(Sjors, you may be confusing my project, with Bitcoin Core, which contains python, including a siget-mining-script.)

CUSF is clever -- because it **frees** Core from the headache and responsibility of soft fork activation (which I know many people here hardly enjoy). That is why it is better -- I can activate my own thing, without bothering you all. And I don't have to "compete" with CTV to be further ahead "in line" (or whatever). So I am free to appraise CTV rationally.

We all know that Core is a meritocracy. And that every decision and sentence uttered by Core is a perfect work of divine truth -- free of all the flaws that have plagued every other organization throughout history. Lucky us! Just think, in other organizations, people sometimes allow their prejudice to color their judgement, occasionally jumping to conclusions that are incorrect -- not here though. Here it's all based on merit, baby. No need for a plan B!

Cheers,
Paul

[0] https://github.com/LayerTwo-Labs/bip300301_enforcer

--
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 bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/f8220f1b-831a-4459-8dee-7fc81f4b666cn%40googlegroups.com.