Author: Michael Folkson 2022-04-20 18:19:49
Published on: 2022-04-20T18:19:49+00:00
Michael Folkson has responded to Robin Linus's email regarding his opposition to the activation of CTV. Folkson believes that there are other covenant enabling proposals out there and is unsure whether CTV is the best tool for the job without consensus from the community. He also believes that the kind of work he was hoping to see on CTV use cases hasn't happened yet, and that instead there have been repeated arguments over whether CTV should be activated or not. Folkson lays out a better way forward, which is to continue building use cases of CTV, convince the community it is the best tool for the job, and then compare it to other existing covenant enabling proposals. However, he acknowledges that this requires a lot of work, time, and patience, and that it is easier to agitate for a soft fork on a mailing list. In response to Linus's email, Folkson argues that any soft fork introduces chain split risk into the equation and that a contentious soft fork activation attempt contains more chain split risk. Therefore, he suggests that if there is a need for a contentious soft fork activation attempt, it should be done quickly to get it over with. Folkson also discusses the potential chain split risk associated with CTV and offers suggestions for those who oppose the soft fork activation attempt, such as registering their opposition on Jeremy Rubin's site and running full node software that doesn't include CTV and CTV activation code. He concludes by stating that the uncertainty, confusion, and disruption caused by contentious soft forks could make future soft forks that do have community consensus much harder to pull off.
Updated on: 2023-06-15T19:03:24.911859+00:00