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 transparent
Good morning Dave, et al.,
I have not read through *all* the mail on this thread, but have read a fair
amount of it.
I think the main argument *for* this particular idea is that "it allows the use
of real-world non-toy funds to prove that this feature is something actual
users demand".
An ide
Hi darosior,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.
> I would like to know people's sentiment about doing (a very slightly tweaked
> version of) BIP118 in place of
> (or before doing) BIP119.
Sounds good to me. Although from an activation perspective it may not be
either/or, both proposals
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!
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assum
You're not even considering user resistance in your cases. You're purely
relying on miners and calling speedy trial superior. I don't know if you're
being obtuse on purpose, I'm explaining myself very badly...
I DON'T WANT TO RELY ON MINERS TO RESIST CHANGES I DON'T WANT TO.
Sorry for the tone, bu
On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 2:14 PM Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 12:13:08PM +0100, Jorge Timón wrote:
> > You're not even considering user resistance in your cases.
>
> Of course I am. Again:
>
No, you're relying on miners to stop bad proposals.
> > > My claim is that for *any* b
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 e
On April 21, 2022 5:10:02 AM GMT+02:00, alicexbt via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
>@DavidHarding
>
>Interesting proposal to revert consensus changes. Is it possible to do this
>for soft forks that are already activated?
>
>Example: Some users are not okay with witness discount in segwit transactions
>
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 prot
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
bitcoin-dev@li
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 yo
On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 12:13:08PM +0100, Jorge Timón wrote:
> You're not even considering user resistance in your cases.
Of course I am. Again:
> > My claim is that for *any* bad (evil, flawed, whatever) softfork, then
> > attempting activation via bip8 is *never* superior to speedy trial,
> >
13 matches
Mail list logo
