Hi Floppy,
Yeah, I mean it would be nice for the letter signatories to have also
put their code review along their tag names... Most of the time consensus
changes are a bit more complex than "yes" or "no" or "good" vs "evil" and
I do understand the recrimination of my fella bitcoin core hackers on
the nonsense that this kind of letter can lead to...
I do remember the Buck O'Perley comments here [0], that a gathering of all
the technical opinions could be welcome to let the wider community, beyond
the narrow "powwow" of the developers, makes its own opinion on consensus changes.
In that spirit, in my view it would have been better for each letter signatory
to explain the technical reasons, trade-offs they see, why they think CTV is
technically solid, etc on their personal blog post or something else...
Anyway, I did concept ACK the BIP119 code branch (for the reasons explained):
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31989#issuecomment-3218427453I'm not going to die on a hill for CTV to happen, but I won't also won't
die on a hill for CTV _not_ to happen. So officially, I'm in the "bored"
camp of devs on the CTV discussion.
I was there when its original author presented it to the world back in 2019,
and since then and so far I cannot find reasons how CTV is a technical hazard
for the bitcoin network (see more caveats in my comment). Personally, I'm not
excited for it, though as a developer engaging in consensus changes, if there
are enough developers and stakeholders in the ecosystem who wish it, I'm fine
with it.
Nice, for the IRC meetings, and yes I have memory of the taproot
workshop it was good, I don't think I'll be able to join the IRC
meetings, though if there are transcripts I'll try to keep an eye
on it.
Best,
Antoine
OTS hash: 87dfdb18a8a6abca5a0e4bc8b56da4d11fe0b9bd797fbb02aa8e497377637b98
[0]
https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/BQjnkZZajHKYBOUFAin8toHgNHhG346VUR4GQx6bSi2ftOuNTK1c1d4LWN4Zmr0tUg2w3xgtIZJSphBORYgWw4PPXq5pGFoZJk2Lx6AokuQ=@protonmail.com/