CTV Meeting #5 Agenda (Tuesday, March 7th, 12:00 PT)

CTV Meeting #5 Agenda (Tuesday, March 7th, 12:00 PT)
2022-03-08  3:32 ` Jeremy Rubin
  
From: Jeremy Rubin @ 2022-03-08  2:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin development mailing list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 848 bytes --]

Hi all,

There will be a CTV meeting tomorrow at noon PT. Agenda below:

1) Sapio Taproot Support Update / Request for Review (20 Minutes)
    - Experimental support for Taproot merged on master
https://github.com/sapio-lang/sapio
2) Transaction Sponsoring v.s CPFP/RBF (20 Minutes)
    -
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-February/019879.html
    -
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2020-September/018168.html
3) Jamesob's Non-Recursive Vaults Post (20 minutes)
    -
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-March/020067.html
4) What the heck is everyone talking about on the mailing list all of the
sudden (30 minutes)
    - EVICT, TLUV, FOLD, Lisp, OP_ANNEX, Drivechain Covenants, Jets, Etc
5) Q&A (30 mins)

Best,

Jeremy


--
@JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3479 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2022-03-08  2:50 [bitcoin-dev] CTV Meeting #5 Agenda (Tuesday, March 7th, 12:00 PT) Jeremy Rubin

  2022-03-09 11:02   ` Jorge Timón
  
From: Jeremy Rubin @ 2022-03-08  3:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin development mailing list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1134 bytes --]

* Tuesday, March 8th.

I think Noon PT == 8pm UTC?

but dont trust me i cant even tell what day is what.
--
@JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>


On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 6:50 PM Jeremy Rubin <jeremy.l.rubin@gmail•com>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> There will be a CTV meeting tomorrow at noon PT. Agenda below:
>
> 1) Sapio Taproot Support Update / Request for Review (20 Minutes)
>     - Experimental support for Taproot merged on master
> https://github.com/sapio-lang/sapio
> 2) Transaction Sponsoring v.s CPFP/RBF (20 Minutes)
>     -
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-February/019879.html
>     -
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2020-September/018168.html
> 3) Jamesob's Non-Recursive Vaults Post (20 minutes)
>     -
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-March/020067.html
> 4) What the heck is everyone talking about on the mailing list all of the
> sudden (30 minutes)
>     - EVICT, TLUV, FOLD, Lisp, OP_ANNEX, Drivechain Covenants, Jets, Etc
> 5) Q&A (30 mins)
>
> Best,
>
> Jeremy
>
>
> --
> @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4763 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2022-03-08  3:32 ` Jeremy Rubin

  2022-03-09 14:14     ` Michael Folkson
  
From: Jorge Timón @ 2022-03-09 11:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jeremy Rubin, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1764 bytes --]

Since this has meetings like taproot, it seems it's going to end up being
added in bitcoin core no matter what.

Should we start the conversation on how to resist it when that happens?
We should talk more about activation mechanisms and how users should be
able to actively resist them more.


On Tue, Mar 8, 2022, 03:32 Jeremy Rubin via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> * Tuesday, March 8th.
>
> I think Noon PT == 8pm UTC?
>
> but dont trust me i cant even tell what day is what.
> --
> @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 6:50 PM Jeremy Rubin <jeremy.l.rubin@gmail•com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> There will be a CTV meeting tomorrow at noon PT. Agenda below:
>>
>> 1) Sapio Taproot Support Update / Request for Review (20 Minutes)
>>     - Experimental support for Taproot merged on master
>> https://github.com/sapio-lang/sapio
>> 2) Transaction Sponsoring v.s CPFP/RBF (20 Minutes)
>>     -
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-February/019879.html
>>     -
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2020-September/018168.html
>> 3) Jamesob's Non-Recursive Vaults Post (20 minutes)
>>     -
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-March/020067.html
>> 4) What the heck is everyone talking about on the mailing list all of the
>> sudden (30 minutes)
>>     - EVICT, TLUV, FOLD, Lisp, OP_ANNEX, Drivechain Covenants, Jets, Etc
>> 5) Q&A (30 mins)
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Jeremy
>>
>>
>> --
>> @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6054 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2022-03-09 11:02   ` Jorge Timón

  2022-03-10 11:41       ` Jorge Timón
  
From: Michael Folkson @ 2022-03-09 14:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jorge Timón, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5441 bytes --]

Hi Jorge

> Since this has meetings like taproot, it seems it's going to end up being added in bitcoin core no matter what.

Anyone can set up a IRC channel, anyone can organize a IRC meeting, anyone can announce meetings on the mailing list. Just because an individual is enthusiastic for a soft fork proposal does not imply it has community consensus or that it is likely to be merged into Core in the short term or long term. It is true that other soft fork proposal authors/contributors are not taking the approach Jeremy is taking and are instead working quietly in the background. I prefer the latter approach so soon after Taproot activation but I look forward to hearing about the progress made on other proposals in due course.

> Should we start the conversation on how to resist it when that happens?
We should talk more about activation mechanisms and how users should be able to actively resist them more.

I can only speak for myself but if activation was being pursued for a soft fork that didn't have community consensus I would seek to join you in an effort to resist that activation. Taproot (pre-activation discussion) set a strong precedent in terms of community outreach and patiently building community consensus over many years. If that precedent was thrown out I think we are in danger of creating the chaos that most of us would seek to avoid. You are free to start whatever conversation you want but personally until Jeremy or whoever else embarks on an activation attempt I'd rather forget about activation discussions for a while.

> What is ST? If it may be a reason to oppose CTV, why not talk about it more explicitly so that others can understand the criticisms?

ST is short for Speedy Trial, the activation mechanism used for Taproot. I have implored people on many occasions now to not mix discussion of a soft fork proposal with discussion of an activation mechanism. Those discussions can happen in parallel but they are entirely independent topics of discussion. Mixing them is misleading at best and manipulative at worst.

> It seems that criticism isn't really that welcomed and is just explained away.
Perhaps it is just my subjective perception. Sometimes it feels we're going from "don't trust, verify" to "just trust jeremy rubin", i hope this is really just my subjective perception. Because I think it would be really bad that we started to blindly trust people like that, and specially jeremy.

I think we should generally avoid getting personal on this mailing list. However, although I agree that Jeremy has done some things in the past that have been over-exuberant to put it mildly, as long as he listens to community feedback and doesn't try to force through a contentious soft fork earlier than the community is comfortable with I think his work can add material value to the future soft fork discussion. I entirely agree that we can't get into a situation where any one individual can push through a soft fork without getting community consensus and deep technical review from as many qualified people as possible. That can take a long time (the demands on long term contributors' time are vast) and hence anyone without serious levels of patience should probably exclusively work on sidechains, altcoins etc (or non-consensus changes in Bitcoin) rather than Bitcoin consensus changes.

Thanks
Michael

--
Michael Folkson
Email: michaelfolkson at [protonmail.com](http://protonmail.com/)
Keybase: michaelfolkson
PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3

------- Original Message -------
On Wednesday, March 9th, 2022 at 11:02 AM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Since this has meetings like taproot, it seems it's going to end up being added in bitcoin core no matter what.
>
> Should we start the conversation on how to resist it when that happens?
> We should talk more about activation mechanisms and how users should be able to actively resist them more.
>
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2022, 03:32 Jeremy Rubin via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> * Tuesday, March 8th.
>>
>> I think Noon PT == 8pm UTC?
>>
>> but dont trust me i cant even tell what day is what.
>> --
>> [@JeremyRubin](https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin)
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 6:50 PM Jeremy Rubin <jeremy.l.rubin@gmail•com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> There will be a CTV meeting tomorrow at noon PT. Agenda below:
>>>
>>> 1) Sapio Taproot Support Update / Request for Review (20 Minutes)
>>> - Experimental support for Taproot merged on master https://github.com/sapio-lang/sapio
>>> 2) Transaction Sponsoring v.s CPFP/RBF (20 Minutes)
>>> - https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-February/019879.html
>>> - https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2020-September/018168.html
>>> 3) Jamesob's Non-Recursive Vaults Post (20 minutes)
>>> - https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-March/020067.html
>>> 4) What the heck is everyone talking about on the mailing list all of the sudden (30 minutes)
>>> - EVICT, TLUV, FOLD, Lisp, OP_ANNEX, Drivechain Covenants, Jets, Etc
>>> 5) Q&A (30 mins)
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Jeremy
>>>
>>> --
>>> [@JeremyRubin](https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 16958 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2022-03-09 14:14     ` Michael Folkson

  
From: Jorge Timón @ 2022-03-10 11:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Michael Folkson;  Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7122 bytes --]

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022, 14:14 Michael Folkson <michaelfolkson@protonmail•com>
wrote:

> Hi Jorge
>
> > Since this has meetings like taproot, it seems it's going to end up
> being added in bitcoin core no matter what.
>
> Anyone can set up a IRC channel, anyone can organize a IRC meeting, anyone
> can announce meetings on the mailing list. Just because an individual is
> enthusiastic for a soft fork proposal does not imply it has community
> consensus or that it is likely to be merged into Core in the short term or
> long term. It is true that other soft fork proposal authors/contributors
> are not taking the approach Jeremy is taking and are instead working
> quietly in the background. I prefer the latter approach so soon after
> Taproot activation but I look forward to hearing about the progress made on
> other proposals in due course.
>

I hope you're right and not every proposal that gets to have a meeting gets
deployed.

> Should we start the conversation on how to resist it when that happens?
> We should talk more about activation mechanisms and how users should be
> able to actively resist them more.
>
> I can only speak for myself but if activation was being pursued for a soft
> fork that didn't have community consensus I would seek to join you in an
> effort to resist that activation. Taproot (pre-activation discussion) set a
> strong precedent in terms of community outreach and patiently building
> community consensus over many years. If that precedent was thrown out I
> think we are in danger of creating the chaos that most of us would seek to
> avoid. You are free to start whatever conversation you want but personally
> until Jeremy or whoever else embarks on an activation attempt I'd rather
> forget about activation discussions for a while.
>

I strongly disagree taproot set a strong precedent in terms of listening to
criticism and looking for consensus. Lots of legitimate criticisms seemed
to be simply ignored.
I really think it set a bad preference, even if taproot as deployed is
good, which I'm not sure about.

> What is ST? If it may be a reason to oppose CTV, why not talk about it
> more explicitly so that others can understand the criticisms?
>
> ST is short for Speedy Trial, the activation mechanism used for Taproot. I
> have implored people on many occasions now to not mix discussion of a soft
> fork proposal with discussion of an activation mechanism. Those discussions
> can happen in parallel but they are entirely independent topics of
> discussion. Mixing them is misleading at best and manipulative at worst.
>

Thanks. Yes, those topics were ignored before "let's focus on the proposal
first" and afterwards "let's just deploy this and we can discuss this in
more detail for the next proposal".
And I thonk lots of valid criticism was ignored and disregarded.


> It seems that criticism isn't really that welcomed and is just explained
> away.
> Perhaps it is just my subjective perception. Sometimes it feels we're
> going from "don't trust, verify" to "just trust jeremy rubin", i hope this
> is really just my subjective perception. Because I think it would be really
> bad that we started to blindly trust people like that, and specially jeremy.
>
> I think we should generally avoid getting personal on this mailing list.
> However, although I agree that Jeremy has done some things in the past that
> have been over-exuberant to put it mildly, as long as he listens to
> community feedback and doesn't try to force through a contentious soft fork
> earlier than the community is comfortable with I think his work can add
> material value to the future soft fork discussion. I entirely agree that we
> can't get into a situation where any one individual can push through a soft
> fork without getting community consensus and deep technical review from as
> many qualified people as possible. That can take a long time (the demands
> on long term contributors' time are vast) and hence anyone without serious
> levels of patience should probably exclusively work on sidechains, altcoins
> etc (or non-consensus changes in Bitcoin) rather than Bitcoin consensus
> changes.
>

You're right, we shouldn't get personal. We shouldn't ignore feedback from
me, mark friedenbach or luke just because of who it comes from.
I don't think jeremy listens to feedback, judging from taproot activation
discussions, I felt very much ignores by him and others. Luke was usually
ignored. Mark criticisms on taproot, not the activation itself, seemed to
be ignored as well. I mean, if somebody refuted his concerns somewhere, I
missed it.
But even if I believe jremey has malicious intentions and doesn't listen to
the community, you're still right, we shouldn't get personal. I shoud
assume the same malevolent intentions I assume jeremy has from everyone
else.

Thanks
> Michael
>
> --
> Michael Folkson
> Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com
> Keybase: michaelfolkson
> PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3
>
> ------- Original Message -------
> On Wednesday, March 9th, 2022 at 11:02 AM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Since this has meetings like taproot, it seems it's going to end up being
> added in bitcoin core no matter what.
>
> Should we start the conversation on how to resist it when that happens?
> We should talk more about activation mechanisms and how users should be
> able to actively resist them more.
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2022, 03:32 Jeremy Rubin via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> * Tuesday, March 8th.
>>
>> I think Noon PT == 8pm UTC?
>>
>> but dont trust me i cant even tell what day is what.
>> --
>> @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 6:50 PM Jeremy Rubin <jeremy.l.rubin@gmail•com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> There will be a CTV meeting tomorrow at noon PT. Agenda below:
>>>
>>> 1) Sapio Taproot Support Update / Request for Review (20 Minutes)
>>> - Experimental support for Taproot merged on master
>>> https://github.com/sapio-lang/sapio
>>> 2) Transaction Sponsoring v.s CPFP/RBF (20 Minutes)
>>> -
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-February/019879.html
>>> -
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2020-September/018168.html
>>> 3) Jamesob's Non-Recursive Vaults Post (20 minutes)
>>> -
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-March/020067.html
>>> 4) What the heck is everyone talking about on the mailing list all of
>>> the sudden (30 minutes)
>>> - EVICT, TLUV, FOLD, Lisp, OP_ANNEX, Drivechain Covenants, Jets, Etc
>>> 5) Q&A (30 mins)
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Jeremy
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 18694 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]