Author: Michael Folkson 2022-01-19 12:02:18
Published on: 2022-01-19T12:02:18+00:00
In an email thread regarding the review of CTV BIP, Michael Folkson requested Eric and Luke to not discuss activation methods for future soft forks on a thread for CTV BIP review. The reason given for this request was that he and other members did not support an upcoming activation attempt of standalone OP_CTV. He suggested that if they want to discuss activation methods for soft forks generally, it would be better to set up a separate thread. Michael explained that the activation discussion for Taproot was kept separate from the review of the Taproot BIPs and implementation until there was overwhelming community consensus for the soft fork to be activated. Even though they are free to discuss any topic, discussing soft fork activation methods on an OP_CTV thread might give the impression that OP_CTV is the next soft fork to be activated, which is mere speculation at this point.Eric and Luke had a disagreement with Michael's statement regarding the backward compatibility of unenforced soft forks and chain splits. They claimed that miners could cause disruption by producing a split, but the soft fork itself does not produce a chain split. However, Michael argued that without majority hash power enforcement, soft forks are not backward compatible. He pointed out that observed chain splits have occurred in more than one large-scale soft fork deployment, and these splits were resolved only through hash power enforcement. Eric stated that BIP8 achieved consensus for Taproot activation, while Michael disagreed and called it a misleading statement. Michael also accused Eric of attempting to deceive others.
Updated on: 2023-06-15T15:18:13.158420+00:00