Published on: 2022-05-07T01:57:39+00:00
The email conversation between Jorge Timón and John Tromp on the Bitcoin-dev mailing list has sparked a discussion on irony. Timón accused Tromp of making personal attacks against Andreas Antonopoulos for his opinions on bip8. However, Tromp pointed out that Timón himself had made a personal attack by calling Jeremy ignorant about bip8. This led to a discussion on how ironic it is that people who base their arguments on personal attacks are also the ones who complain the most about personal attacks.In a separate discussion on the bitcoin-dev mailing list, Jorge Timón questioned a claim made by Russell O'Connor about the design of Speedy Trial (ST). Timón found the claim strange and stated that the grace period for slower activation after lock-in was added to address concerns raised by people who disliked the proposal. However, he still believed that speedy trial was a bad proposal due to incorrect analysis. O'Connor responded by quoting his own blog post where he clarified that the design of speedy trial was not based on any activation philosophy about failing fast.In another email exchange, Jorge Timón suggested that it is unnecessary to personally attack Andreas for his opinions. He argued that the only reason Jeremy Rubin does not like BIP8 is because he is ignorant about it and has not reviewed it enough. However, John Tromp pointed out the irony in equating 'clueless about BIP119' with a personal attack and then calling Jeremy ignorant about BIP8. The conversation seems to revolve around differences of opinion regarding different Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs).In a separate email thread, Ryan Grant defends the OP_CTV covenant proposal after Jorge Timón questioned Andreas' criticism. Ryan argues that OP_CTV covenants cannot restrict any address that the sender does not control and criticizes Andreas for not code-reviewing BIP119 or the pull request. Ryan believes that Andreas did not look into the reason why the proposed client was safe and would not cause a chain split. The conversation also references Russell O'Connor's explanation for how Speedy Trials arose in the consensus process and how it was designed.The email threads also touch upon the concept of covenants in Bitcoin and the contributions made by individuals towards it. There is a mention of Bip8 and the importance of being open-minded to understand its analysis. The discussions revolve around the need for education, avoiding personal attacks, addressing misinformation, and looking at technical details when discussing contentious soft forks and covenant proposals.Michael Folkson expresses his thoughts on the recent attempt to activate a contentious soft fork and questions what should be done differently if such attempts happen again. He believes that it is unacceptable for one individual to bring the entire Bitcoin network to the brink of a chain split and suggests there should be a personal cost to dissuade them from trying it again. Folkson acknowledges that Bitcoin is a permissionless network and no authority can stop such attempts, but hopes that people will actively resist and prevent the network from being fundamentally broken.Overall, the email exchanges and threads highlight discussions on irony, differences of opinion regarding Bitcoin Improvement Proposals, the design of Speedy Trial, criticism of covenant proposals, addressing misinformation, and the recent attempt to activate a contentious soft fork. The conversations emphasize the importance of education, avoiding personal attacks, and considering technical details when discussing contentious topics in the Bitcoin community.
Updated on: 2023-08-02T06:20:11.973401+00:00