pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @standardcrypto 8h \ parent \ on: Chaincode Labs is doing politics with Bitcoin consensus changes (CTV) bitcoin
To add color to this, I think many in the room thought that the pull request you were commenting on
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31989 ( BIP-119 (OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY) (regtest only) #31989 )
should itself have not been permitted. For the same reasons as your comments on it.
I would also align with this opinion. Not just for CTV, but for any soft fork which for some fluffy (sorry I can't give the criteria) definition of consensus, is agreed as the path forward. The idea being that CTV just hasn't met this (fluffy) criteria to be forking the main repo, not even for regtest.
write
preview
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @theariard OP 1h
I would also align with this opinion. Not just for CTV, but for any soft fork which for some fluffy (sorry I can't give the criteria) definition of consensus, is agreed as the path forward. The idea being that CTV just hasn't met this (fluffy) criteria to be forking the main repo, not even for regtest.
There is the theory and there is the practice. I’m +1 on the idea to have another repository like bitcoin-inquisition to test many iterations of a things like CTV.
In practice, there is always value with a branch opened on the mainnet branch, as you can review the code with all the mainnet standard policy rules playing out (and for Script interpreter there is the many flags interacting one with each other, just go to see src/policy/policy.h sigh) and default mainnet configuration for memory caches.
Where is the clean limit and when something is mature to be opened on the main repository, I have no idea. But there is the theory and there is the practice...
reply