Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

  • Star 3 You must be signed in to star a gist
  • Fork 1 You must be signed in to fork a gist
Star You must be signed in to star a gist
Save michaelfolkson/352a503f4f9fc5de89af528d86a1b718 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Collect together concerns (alphabetical order by name) made public about premature BIP 119 activation speculation in
Adam Back: <>
AJ Towns: <>
alpacasw: <>
andhans_jail: <>
Bob McElrath: <>
BitcoinLizard: <>
BlueMatt: <>
Christian Decker: <>
darosior: <>
EricSirion: <>
francispouliot_: <>
GrassFedBitcoin: <>
John Carvalho: <>
Kevin Loaec: <>
Michael Folkson: <>
Murch: <>
Neil Woodfine: <>
nvk: <>
OneSirMeow: <>
Peter Todd: <>
Sachin Meier: <>
yojoots: <>
zndtoshi: <>
Copy link

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...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment