Author: Jeremy 2021-03-24 18:10:17
Published on: 2021-03-24T18:10:17+00:00
In an email exchange between Jeremy Rubin and Michael Folkson, Rubin accuses Folkson of being ingenuine about other projects as he understands that Folkson is one of the parties leading them. Rubin also disagrees with Folkson's rejection of MTP based ST, stating that his argument for nacking it being "weird" is a normative statement rather than a technical one. Rubin argues that using MTP w/ min active height is technically justified and not a weird choice at all. He disagrees with Folkson's logic around preventing a "marketed push to launch a UASF client," stating that pushing for height-based ST is causing additional review burden on contributors. Rubin concludes by stating that Folkson's flip of Rubin's argument from rejecting ST Height onto ST MTP is no more than an "I know you are but what am I" argument which does not hold water. In a previous email, Folkson had documented his preferences for a consistent use of block height and had rejected the idea of using a mix of both block heights and MTP in the same activation mechanism. Folkson argued that using a weird mix of block heights and MTP makes no sense to him and that he would find it easier to reason about timings and time intervals if block heights were used consistently across the activation mechanism. However, Rubin disagreed with this argument, stating that there is no good reason for the fuss and that MTP based ST is easily compatible with a height-based BIP8 LOT=true + minactiveheight client.
Updated on: 2023-06-14T19:47:59.560929+00:00