On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 03:25:19PM +, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I'm also perfectly happy with the status quo of the default signet
> having block signers and gatekeepers for soft forks activated on the
> default signet. I'm more concerned with those gatekeepers being under
>
Thanks for this AJ, especially the history on prior soft forks, the vast
majority of which I was unclear on.
> The point of doing it via signet and outside of core is there doesn't
need to be any community consensus on soft forks. Unlike mainnet, signet
sBTC isn't money, and it isn't
On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 05:15:45PM +1000, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> So that's the concept. For practical purposes, I haven't yet merged
> either CTV or APO support into the bitcoin-inquisition 23.0 branch yet
I've now merged CTV and updated my signet miner to enforce both CTV and
APO
On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 11:48:32AM +, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> SegWit was added
> to a new testnet (Segnet) for testing rather than the pre-existing testnet
> and I think future soft fork proposals should follow a similar approach.
I think past history falls into a few groups:
Hi Michael,
> We then get into the situation where the block signers (currently AJ and
> Kalle) are the gatekeepers on what soft fork proposals are added.
Things that could solve the gatekeeping issue:
1) Adding more maintainers that are experienced enough to review consensus
code.
2) Every
I've given this some extra thought and discussed with others who may later
chime in on this thread. I'm now convinced this should be done on a custom
public signet rather than on the default signet. SegWit was added to a new
testnet (Segnet) for testing rather than the pre-existing testnet and
On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 02:47:38PM -0400, Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Said succinctly, in the genesis of creative ideas, evaluation doesn't
> happen at a single clear point but all along the idea lifetime, where this
> evaluation is as much done by the original author than its peers and
Hi AJ,
Thanks to setup a new laboratory for consensus upgrades experiment! Idea
was exposed during the last LN Summit, glad to see there is a useful fork
now.
While I think one of the problem particular in the current stagnation about
consensus upgrades has been well scoped by your proposal,
Hi alicexbt
> Good to see some positivity, finally.
I had enthusiasm for this concept of enabling proposed soft fork functionality
on signet 2 years ago [0]. Nothing has changed, still enthusiastic :) Not
enthusiastic about the months wasted on unnecessary contentious soft fork drama
since
Hi Michael,
> I agree with Matt. The less said about the "Aw shucks Jeremy didn't know that
> CTV didn't have community consensus at the time" [0] and "it was the lack of
> process that was the problem" the better.
The linked gist cannot be taken seriously and I am not sure why you keep
I agree with Matt. The less said about the "Aw shucks Jeremy didn't know that
CTV didn't have community consensus at the time" [0] and "it was the lack of
process that was the problem" the better. If people don't care about lack of
community consensus there is no process in a permissionless,
On 9/17/22 2:14 AM, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 12:46:53PM -0400, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
On 9/16/22 3:15 AM, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev wrote:
As we've seen from the attempt at a CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY activation earlier
in the year [0], the question of "how to
On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 12:46:53PM -0400, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On 9/16/22 3:15 AM, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > 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
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
