|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>|
Apr 23, 2022
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...
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.
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.
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.