Hi Peter and Zac,
> I like the maxim of Peter Todd: any change of Bitcoin must benefit all
> users. This means that every change must have well-defined and transparent
> benefits. Personally I believe that the only additions to the protocol that
> would still be acceptable are those that clearly b
On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 at 07:36, ZmnSCPxj wrote
CTV *can* benefit layer 2 users, which is why I switched from vaguely
> apathetic to CTV, to vaguely supportive of it.
Other proposals exist that also benefit L2 solutions. What makes you
support CTV specifically?
Centrally documenting the implicati
Good morning Zac,
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 at 07:36, ZmnSCPxj wrote
>
> > CTV *can* benefit layer 2 users, which is why I switched from vaguely
> > apathetic to CTV, to vaguely supportive of it.
>
>
> Other proposals exist that also benefit L2 solutions. What makes you support
> CTV specifically?
Good morning Peter,
>
> On April 22, 2022 11:03:51 AM GMT+02:00, Zac Greenwood via bitcoin-dev
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
>
> > I like the maxim of Peter Todd: any change of Bitcoin must benefit all
> > users. This means that every change must have well-defined and transparent
On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 2:17 PM Michael Folkson <
michaelfolk...@protonmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Jorge
>
> > Can we agree now that resisting a bip8 proposal is simpler and cleaner
> than resisting a speedy trial proposal?
>
> Personally I'd rather stick to one challenge at a time :) Currently we are
>
On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 2:56 PM Ryan Grant wrote:
> Michael and Jorge,
>
> It is ethically inappropriate to make personal attacks on the
> trustworthiness of participants on this list, on such vague grounds as
> disliking an activation proposal!
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assum
Hi Jorge
> Can we agree now that resisting a bip8 proposal is simpler and cleaner than
> resisting a speedy trial proposal?
Personally I'd rather stick to one challenge at a time :) Currently we are
facing a contentious soft fork activation attempt of CTV using an alternative
client which we e
On April 22, 2022 11:03:51 AM GMT+02:00, Zac Greenwood via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
>I like the maxim of Peter Todd: any change of Bitcoin must benefit *all*
>users. This means that every change must have well-defined and transparent
>benefits. Personally I believe that the only additions to the prot
On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 1:12 PM Jorge Timón wrote:
> [...all context chopped, mid-sentence...]
> I think it is against the spirit of the project to trust ideas based on who
> they come from.
On this we agree!
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@li
Michael and Jorge,
It is ethically inappropriate to make personal attacks on the
trustworthiness of participants on this list, on such vague grounds as
disliking an activation proposal!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith
It is against the spirit of the project to base yo
I've been calling them "controversial softforks" for long.
I hate to be right some times, but I guess I'm happy that I'm not the only
one who distrusts jeremy rubin anymore.
Can we agree now that resisting a bip8 proposal is simpler and cleaner than
resisting a speedy trial proposal?
I guess now w
On Sat, Apr 23, 2022, 5:05 AM Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> @Zac
> > More use cases means more blockchain usage which increases the price of
> a transaction for *everyone*.
>
> This is IMO a ridiculous opposition. Anything that increases the utilit
@Zac
> More use cases means more blockchain usage which increases the price of
a transaction for *everyone*.
This is IMO a ridiculous opposition. Anything that increases the utility of
the bitcoin network will increase usage of the blockchain and increase the
price of a transaction on average. It
>*A change that increases the number of use cases of Bitcoin affects all
users and is *not* non-invasive. More use cases means more blockchain usage
which increases the price of a transaction for *everyone*.*
This manages to be both incorrect and philosophically opposed to what
defines success of
I'm going to keep this short as I'm sure you are not interested in discussion
on supposedly "unhinged" takes. Plus I know you support this soft fork
activation attempt, you have heard the arguments from various people against
attempting it and if you don't believe by now that soft forks should h
On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 at 09:56, Keagan McClelland via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I think that trying to find ways to activate non-invasive changes should
> be everyone's goal, *even if* they personally may not have an immediate use
> case
>
A change that increases
Good day Michael,
> and discuss working on an additional release that if run may ultimately
reject blocks that signal for CTV.
This seems silly to me.
The structure of CTV is imbuing an OP_NOP with script semantics. Resisting
changes that don't affect you is not consistent with the ideals of peo
Ok so we've had to scramble a bit as I don't think anyone except perhaps Jeremy
thought that there would be a Speedy Trial signaling period for a CTV soft fork
planned to start on May 5th [1]. That is two weeks away.
(I have to take what he says at face value. I can understand why one would be
18 matches
Mail list logo
