|Collect together concerns (alphabetical order by name) made public about premature BIP 119 activation speculation in https://github.com/JeremyRubin/rubin.io/pull/2|
|Adam Back: <https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/1477958056776540164?s=20>|
|AJ Towns: <https://twitter.com/ajtowns/status/1478053356337655808?s=20>|
|Bob McElrath: <https://twitter.com/BobMcElrath/status/1478041639608332294?s=20>|
|Christian Decker: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-January/019730.html>|
|John Carvalho: <https://github.com/JeremyRubin/utxos.org/issues/28>|
|Kevin Loaec: <https://twitter.com/KLoaec/status/1517200519638491137?s=20&t=c9wPzpPYwK8ovj3M576OxQ>|
|Michael Folkson: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-January/019728.html>|
|Neil Woodfine: <https://twitter.com/nwoodfine/status/1478322485137272838?s=20>|
|Peter Todd: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-January/019738.html>|
|Sachin Meier: <https://twitter.com/SachinMeier/status/1474511286205562882?s=20>|
@michaelfolkson I share your sentiment and that's exactly what the signals page and repo is for, and maybe they should be added. However, I'm not sure how ethical it is to put someone's opposition on there without their express consent. I'm not sure where the line should be drawn between a page like this and a page like that. The signals page is certainly more formal. This page is more ad hoc. Both are a form of authorized curation by a single individual, with non-originator contributions kept separately until curated into the presentation format.
Apr 23, 2022
However, I'm not sure how ethical it is to put someone's opposition on there without their express consent.
All the links were said in public (linkable) forums and if anyone contacts me privately I will certainly take their names off this doc and even consider deleting it entirely. I have used pseudonyms rather than actual names wherever possible. I understand your concern though.
The signals page is certainly more formal.
It isn't. It is a web page rather than a gist but any kind of positive comment towards CTV is being used as a "soft signal" indicating implicit support of this CTV activation attempt. The process for inclusion (and removal) of individuals is non-existent which this gist has copied.
Both are a form of authorized curation by a single individual, with non-originator contributions kept separately until curated into the presentation format.
Agreed. I don't like this as much as you don't. But I didn't start this. When a soft fork activation is attempted users naturally try to understand whether it has community consensus or not. Other than setting up this gist I didn't know what to do. Let what I believe is an inaccurate narrative that a soft fork activation attempt has community consensus (https://utxos.org/signals/) when it clearly doesn't or repeat the same exercise to counteract what I believe is an inaccurate and misleading narrative.
Very fair points. I'm inclined to agree. I think it's fair to want to push back on a one-sided narrative, and that page does look very one-sided. What tools we have available to us are clumsy. I also don't think Jeremy would want BIP-119 to go in any different than Taproot did, with over 90% consensus. Of course, how that consensus is measured might also have been imperfect. Have you looked into tx signalling any? Signals from txs signed by wallets are used by participating nodes. Tx fees are counted, rather than tx quantity. The dynamics and game theory of it are complex, though, there's certainly nuance in how it should work. Miners, developers, and users are all major factors. @ProofOfKeags and I were discussing all of this the other day. I'm considering formalizing a proposal. But that's just what we need, right? Just another BIP...
@shesek: Perhaps you can do the same analysis on the "signals" in https://utxos.org/signals/? Specifically that those "signals" represent a recent statement of "The next soft fork should be standalone CTV (nothing else) and that I support an activation attempt this year". I suspect the same criticisms you have above could be applied to a large number of the "signals" on that site. This is the game we have to play if you want to do regular small soft forks. I prefer the game where a soft fork like Taproot is only attempted once it is clear there is community consensus.