Re: [bitcoin-dev] On a new community process to specify covenants

2022-09-16 Thread Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev
Hi Buck, > First just wanted to thank you for taking the initiative to > put this together. I think that as the community and > ecosystem continue to grow, it's going to be an important > part of the process to have groups like this develop. Hopefully > they allow us to resist the "Tyranny of

Re: [bitcoin-dev] On a new community process to specify covenants

2022-09-16 Thread Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev
Hi Devrandom, > Agreed, anything that requires a phone number makes it difficult to be > pseudonymous. > > I recommend Matrix, since it doesn't require any privacy invasive > information and has e2ee by default for 1-1 conversations. Yeah sounds like people are opting for either Matrix or IRC

Re: [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin-inquistion: evaluating soft forks on signet

2022-09-16 Thread Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev
Apologies for any typos, somewhat jet-lagged atm. On 9/16/22 3:15 AM, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev wrote: Subhead: "Nobody expects a Bitcoin Inquistion? C'mon man, *everyone* expects a Bitcoin Inquisition." As we've seen from the attempt at a CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY activation earlier in the year

[bitcoin-dev] bitcoin-inquistion: evaluating soft forks on signet

2022-09-16 Thread Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev
Subhead: "Nobody expects a Bitcoin Inquistion? C'mon man, *everyone* expects a Bitcoin Inquisition." As we've seen from the attempt at a CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY activation earlier in the year [0], the question of "how to successfully get soft fork ideas from concept to deployment" doesn't really have