Early in this year, @k00b posted about the utility of bikeshedding (#976885). At the moment, it didn't really sink in, but I've come back to the post a few times since then.
Maybe it's something lots of people knew (that endlessly squabbling about a little thing like filters could help build the consensus around soft forks that don't have much at all to do with filters), but I was strongly reminded of it today when seeing these two posts on X.
tbf I think Luke has always supported covenants. It's seemingly inconsistent with his stance on non-monetary transactions, considering that CTV opens up more non-monetary applications, but it's also a sure sign he isn't fully captured by the ideology he created.
yes, I think I had seen statements to that effect in the past, but it's interesting to see nopara following the same thought pattern you were describing in May.
@nopara73 once lurked here. Maybe they still do. Although I'm not sure which is more self-flattering: believing I first had a thought that others will have or my thoughts have influenced someone else's thinking.
I still lurk here alright :)
Ops, I forgot to login. This was me as well: #1090886
A "wild" softfork activated outside of core would be a new reality, especially since the 17% Luke mentions is nodes, not miners, so it would need to be an UASF.
Interesting times.
That's deep and on some level it's correct, yet I'd argue the very thing I'm doing here is picking a fight with bikeshedding
https://xcancel.com/nopara73/status/1958856080831684889