Re: [bitcoin-dev] Interrogating a BIP157 server, BIP158 change proposal
The attack was in your implication that I would assume ill intent of those contributed to the proposal. That is not my position. I explained why, I think, rolling out a commitment could face opposition. This foreseable opposition, that must not come from you makes me prefer a provable uncommitted filter for now. I am myself concerned of the implications if many nodes would blindly follow POW. I did restart the discussion which I read and participated in at its first instance because implementing the current proposal taught me how problematic as is until not committed and because I have not seen a sign to assume commitment was imminent. This is not just missing code. AFAIK we do not even have a consensus on how any future soft fork would be activated. While trying to build a useful software I have to make assumtions on the timeline of dependencies and in my personal evaluation commitment is not yet to build on. I and others learned in this new discussion new arguments such as that of atomic swaps by Laolu. If nothing else, this was worth of learning. It appears me that it is rather you assuming ill intent on my side, which hurts given that I do contribute to the ecosystem since many years and have not ever been caught of hurting the project. Tamas Blummer On Wed, 6 Feb 2019, 20:16 Gregory Maxwell On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 7:48 PM Tamas Blummer > wrote: > > I do not think this ad hominem attack of you on me was justified. > > I apologize if I have offended you, but I am at a loss to find in my > words you found to be an attack. Can you help me out? > > On reread the only thing I'm saying is that you hadn't even read the > prior discussion. Am I mistaken? If so, why did you simply propose > reverting prior improvements without addressing the arguments given > the first time around or even acknowledging that you were rehashing an > old discussion? > ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Interrogating a BIP157 server, BIP158 change proposal
I do not think this ad hominem attack of you on me was justified. I wrote code, gathered and shared data now and back in 2018. I showed understanding of non technical issues. Is there an actual action that defies my observation that a commitment is not yet in sight? Is there anything technically wrong in what I wrote? If not you should stop. Tamas Blummer On Wed, 6 Feb 2019, 18:17 Gregory Maxwell On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 8:10 AM Tamas Blummer > wrote: > > I am skeptical that commitment of any filter will come into Core soon. > [...] A committed filter makes light clients much more reliable and > attractive, for some taste too much more. > > You keep repeating this smear. Please stop. > > If you would actually bother reading the threads where this was > discussed previously you will see that there was significant interest > from bitcoin developers to eventually commit an output filter, and a > significant investment of effort in improving the proposal to that > end. It is really disheartening to see you continue to repeat your > negative assumptions about other people's wishes when you haven't even > invested the time required to read their words. > ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Interrogating a BIP157 server, BIP158 change proposal
On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 8:10 AM Tamas Blummer wrote: > I am skeptical that commitment of any filter will come into Core soon. [...] > A committed filter makes light clients much more reliable and attractive, for > some taste too much more. You keep repeating this smear. Please stop. If you would actually bother reading the threads where this was discussed previously you will see that there was significant interest from bitcoin developers to eventually commit an output filter, and a significant investment of effort in improving the proposal to that end. It is really disheartening to see you continue to repeat your negative assumptions about other people's wishes when you haven't even invested the time required to read their words. ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
