Hi Michael,
> 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.
I'm quoting 5 points from the blog post and putting some words in cap
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
>
>
> I would comment on this point, but I'm not sure I'm "technical enough". I
> have to admit: I've never played tennis.
>
You are technicial enough to read the nacks... everyone is:
https://github.com/JeremyRubin/utxos.org/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-desc
I can give a summary
Thanks, this is good feedback.
I think the main thing then to add to forkd would be some sort of seed
nodes set that you can peer with of other forkd runners? And have forkd be
responsible for making sure you addnode them?
wrt the generation of other problems, my understanding of the *summons
rus
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 th
"The only 3 nacks"...I would not call that an accurate "collection of
feedback". Feedback is always more positive when you laregely chose to
ignore any negative feedback, isn't it?
"Largely, the formal critiques of CTV (the 3 NACKs) are based on topics of
whether or not to swing the racquet, not i
On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 7:33 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
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:48:20PM -0700, Jeremy Rubin via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 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
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
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 Au
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 d
> 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 agai
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 out
13 matches
Mail list logo
