Hi Peter and Zac,
> I like the maxim of Peter Todd: any change of Bitcoin must benefit all
> users. This means that every change must have well-defined and transparent
> benefits. Personally I believe that the only additions to the protocol that
> would still be acceptable are those that clearly
On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 at 07:36, ZmnSCPxj wrote
CTV *can* benefit layer 2 users, which is why I switched from vaguely
> apathetic to CTV, to vaguely supportive of it.
Other proposals exist that also benefit L2 solutions. What makes you
support CTV specifically?
Centrally documenting the
Good morning Zac,
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 at 07:36, ZmnSCPxj wrote
>
> > CTV *can* benefit layer 2 users, which is why I switched from vaguely
> > apathetic to CTV, to vaguely supportive of it.
>
>
> Other proposals exist that also benefit L2 solutions. What makes you support
> CTV specifically?
Good morning Peter,
>
> On April 22, 2022 11:03:51 AM GMT+02:00, Zac Greenwood via bitcoin-dev
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
>
> > I like the maxim of Peter Todd: any change of Bitcoin must benefit all
> > users. This means that every change must have well-defined and
On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 2:17 PM Michael Folkson <
michaelfolk...@protonmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Jorge
>
> > Can we agree now that resisting a bip8 proposal is simpler and cleaner
> than resisting a speedy trial proposal?
>
> Personally I'd rather stick to one challenge at a time :) Currently we are
On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 2:56 PM Ryan Grant wrote:
> Michael and Jorge,
>
> It is ethically inappropriate to make personal attacks on the
> trustworthiness of participants on this list, on such vague grounds as
> disliking an activation proposal!
>
>
Hi Jorge
> Can we agree now that resisting a bip8 proposal is simpler and cleaner than
> resisting a speedy trial proposal?
Personally I'd rather stick to one challenge at a time :) Currently we are
facing a contentious soft fork activation attempt of CTV using an alternative
client which we
On April 22, 2022 11:03:51 AM GMT+02:00, Zac Greenwood via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
>I like the maxim of Peter Todd: any change of Bitcoin must benefit *all*
>users. This means that every change must have well-defined and transparent
>benefits. Personally I believe that the only additions to the
On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 1:12 PM Jorge Timón wrote:
> [...all context chopped, mid-sentence...]
> I think it is against the spirit of the project to trust ideas based on who
> they come from.
On this we agree!
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
Michael and Jorge,
It is ethically inappropriate to make personal attacks on the
trustworthiness of participants on this list, on such vague grounds as
disliking an activation proposal!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith
It is against the spirit of the project to base
I've been calling them "controversial softforks" for long.
I hate to be right some times, but I guess I'm happy that I'm not the only
one who distrusts jeremy rubin anymore.
Can we agree now that resisting a bip8 proposal is simpler and cleaner than
resisting a speedy trial proposal?
I guess now
On Sat, Apr 23, 2022, 5:05 AM Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> @Zac
> > More use cases means more blockchain usage which increases the price of
> a transaction for *everyone*.
>
> This is IMO a ridiculous opposition. Anything that increases the
@Zac
> More use cases means more blockchain usage which increases the price of
a transaction for *everyone*.
This is IMO a ridiculous opposition. Anything that increases the utility of
the bitcoin network will increase usage of the blockchain and increase the
price of a transaction on average.
>*A change that increases the number of use cases of Bitcoin affects all
users and is *not* non-invasive. More use cases means more blockchain usage
which increases the price of a transaction for *everyone*.*
This manages to be both incorrect and philosophically opposed to what
defines success of
I'm going to keep this short as I'm sure you are not interested in discussion
on supposedly "unhinged" takes. Plus I know you support this soft fork
activation attempt, you have heard the arguments from various people against
attempting it and if you don't believe by now that soft forks should
On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 at 09:56, Keagan McClelland via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I think that trying to find ways to activate non-invasive changes should
> be everyone's goal, *even if* they personally may not have an immediate use
> case
>
A change that
Good day Michael,
> and discuss working on an additional release that if run may ultimately
reject blocks that signal for CTV.
This seems silly to me.
The structure of CTV is imbuing an OP_NOP with script semantics. Resisting
changes that don't affect you is not consistent with the ideals of
17 matches
Mail list logo
