pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @theariard OP 11h \ parent \ on: Chaincode Labs is doing politics with Bitcoin consensus changes (CTV) bitcoin
To state my bias up front, if they are trying to slow down CTV, I align with chaincode. I am YAGNI on CTV.
To be frank, I'm not in popping girls mode on CTV. I've been known skeptical on CTV for years and I'm fine with the status quo. On the other hand, there is a point to mark from the CTV supporters, that hash-chain based immutability adds value for folks who wish to improve self-custody in the space.
A lot of Taproot features have been also advocated to improve self-custody, and speaking in experience from someone who ACKed the code consensus change in the repository, Taproot was far more ambitious than CTV.
To said my mind, I don't think we'll go to zero to hero on "vaults" in the bitcoin space, with a silver bullet style consensus change that does everything. More a situation like Lightning, where progress are made painfully stage by stage. A 1st version of the network is deployed with real-economic usage, it's gives more streets credibility to argue a consensus change, change enable a 2nd version of the network, etc...
Mind that few years ago I attempted to move the needle forward with the contracting primitives WG on IRC open to all for a while. I n the sense of hoping that folks we'll build use-cases to cross the base-layer to second-layers communication silos, that explain so much frustration about any cov talks over the last years. Note CLTV was explicitly pointing out "Payment Channels" in its motivation, and it got activated before Lightning got in prod.
However, everyone should play fair. However, if no one is playing fair, how can you play fair? That would appear to be the dilemma, in the eyes of those core devs (including those at chaincode) who control the politically important github account(s?).
You've exposed the full dilemma. Nothing to add.
We should be very careful for any consensus changes, though that's the thing on which forum if the CTV proponents and myself we wish to review the code. Where we should do it ? It's better to do it with the code under the eyes, and we constant rebases being done. Sometimes a small line of code in bitcoin can change the whole technical effect.
but I think "people in the room" would like it to be true now. I think there may also be people who for whatever agenda (maybe a bad one) want you blocked, and yeah that sucks if they are hiding. IDK if chaincode is "in control" of the github in question, my feeling is "probably to some extent but it's complicated." Whoever is running that account, one thing I think "people in the room" feel is, it's turning into a shitshow and it's putting undue stress on those who just want to do cool collected code review.
I do not think there is any fed agency hidden agenda playing out here.
It’s pure Chaincode politics.
Sorry you got your account blocked for the review. As someone who myself has been blocked a few times in various stupid internet troll wars (not that this is one of those, it's not, CTV is important) I encourage you to, in addition to registering the action in the appropriate channels, also use it to your advantage as a cooldown. If it's anger, anger must be channeled appropriately. If it's frustration, realize that those across the table from you are probably also frustrated.
No worries, I'll cooldown as usual by going to investigate more weird bugs. Unless someone goes to put a gun on your head, you're always free to do so. I've never been bored over the last years among bitcoin or lightning.
Zooming out, yes when you're facing that kind of situations, it's still always wise to go for a walk in nature or go to read something to cultivate your mind. When you're a professional in this space, it’s really important to keep a life beyond the boundaries of bitcoin.
Thanks for the words, and that there is people actually caring about the development process.
write
preview