Last active
April 14, 2021 10:42
-
-
Save michaelfolkson/92899f27f1ab30aa2ebee82314f8fe7f to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
If you have an opinion on ST (Speedy Trial) proposal please ACK/NACK this so we can log the level of support for this proposal | |
Details of the proposal are here: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-March/018583.html | |
edit (April 14th 2021) | |
Jeremy Rubin has asked me to add the following: | |
"[bitcoin/bips#1104](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1104) has been proposed (and implemented via | |
[bitcoin/bitcoin#21377](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21377)) as a concrete interpretation of @harding's original | |
proposal. Feel free to re-ACK on the BIP PR (and in the core PR if you feel qualified to review) if this plan matches your | |
expectations, or raise any concerns otherwise." |
bitcoin/bips#1104 has been proposed (and implemented via bitcoin/bitcoin#21377) as a concrete interpretation of @harding's original proposal. Feel free to re-ACK on the BIP PR (and in the core PR if you feel qualified to review) if this plan matches your expectations, or raise any concerns otherwise.
@michaelfolkson perhaps update the top post to point people appropriately
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
@Rspigler: I personally won't be issuing any more ACKs or NACKs related to Speedy Trial, here or on Core PRs. I have tried to advance Speedy Trial in good faith (e.g. looking over the PRs and identifying that not only had we agreed on revised BIP 8 in the community meetings but a majority of reviewers had a slight preference for consistent use of block height) especially when I recognized that Speedy Trial had more community consensus than either BIP 8 (LOT=true) or BIP 8 (LOT =false)). Had I known at the time that there would be "NACKs of technical minutiae with very weak rationales, community meetings to discuss technical minutiae, coin flips...) over BIP 8 vs 9 and block height vs mix of block height and MTP for Speedy Trial" I would have NACKed Speedy Trial from the beginning.
I understand why Luke is angry and he should be. As he says Speedy Trial was supported by him (and me) because it had more consensus than either BIP 8 (LOT = true) or BIP 8 (LOT=false). For a small number of contributors (2?) to NACK using block height consistently across Speedy Trial and insist on not using BIP 8 is just bizarre to me in the context of where we were pre Speedy Trial and in the absence of a strong rationale to NACK using block heights consistently (test networks are not a strong rationale imo and nor is UASF marketing).
I am personally reviewing #21377 because I want to be as familiar with it as I can be and there is a very unlikely chance I find a bug etc in the code. But I won't ACK or NACK the PR and I won't issue any further ACKs or NACKs on this gist. I risk damaging my reputation (more than I already have) and making a mockery of the Core review process. In the very unlikely chance I find a bug I will of course raise it immediately.