Author: Michael Folkson 2022-09-18 18:44:31
Published on: 2022-09-18T18:44:31+00:00
Michael Folkson is enthusiastic about enabling proposed soft fork functionality on signet, which he believes is a good idea. He thinks that building protocols and prototypes with real monetary value is a step up from doing so with worthless signet coins. Michael prefers the sidechain model to the altcoin route, especially when it comes to vaults. He believes that testing soft forks on signet together with research and meetings suggested by Antoine should help in better evaluation phase with less drama, politics, and more technical discussions to reach a goal. Michael also likes the idea of signet having soft fork proposals enabled on it whether that be CTV, APO, etc.Matt Corallo disagrees with Anthony Towns about "how to successfully get soft fork ideas from concept to deployment." He thinks that the current process is flawed and there needs to be a better solution. The lack of champions following steps 1-3 is the issue with progressing a soft-fork. People seem too busy to become champions for a soft-fork, as it is a full-time job for months on end. Jeremy is the only one besides Matt who has made any serious attempt at being the champion for a soft-fork since Taproot, and before that, Segwit. The lack of people stepping up to champion a soft-fork is not an indication that its importance is low, but rather that no one feels strongly enough about it. Anyone who contributes to Core and wants to champion a soft-fork can do so by reaching out to mentors. Antoine's covenant R&D effort seems really promising to Michael, and he hopes the shenanigans from earlier this year don't put people off from engaging with that. He believes that testing soft forks on signet together with research and meetings suggested by Antoine should help in a better evaluation phase with less drama, politics, and more technical discussions to reach a goal. Regarding competing sets of consensus rules, Michael thinks the original vision of sidechains still makes perfect sense. He also mentions that nobody uses Liquid and Signet has more activity than Liquid. Finally, regarding CTV, Matt believes that implying that lack of test frameworks is in any material way part of the lack of movement on forks in Bitcoin is very wrong. CTV has already completed steps 1-3, but only having one author on the list means that step 3 may not have been completed and maybe not even step 2. There are three possibilities: CTV should be in step 4, the evaluation process is too inconclusive, or parts 2-3 are too hard and preventing alternatives from making progress.
Updated on: 2023-06-16T00:16:07.685883+00:00