Hi Michael I think you're right, sorry for getting a little apocalyptic at the end there lol.
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 3:08 AM Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > Thanks for your response Ariel. It would be useful if you responded to > specific points I have made in the mailing list post or at least quote these > ephemeral "people" you speak of. I don't know if you're responding to > conversation on the IRC channel or on social media etc. > > The argument comes from a naive assumption that users MUST upgrade to the > > choice that is submitted into code. But in fact this isn't true and some > > voices in this discussion need to be more humble about what users must or > > must not run. > I personally have never made this assumption. Of course users aren't forced > to run any particular software version, quite the opposite. Defaults set in > software versions matter though as many users won't change them. I'm mostly referring to the two IRC discussions. I normally try to avoid singling people out that's why I didn't refer to anyone in perticular. Here I'll list a couple of quotes from these ephemeral people, while reading them keep in mind what would happen if a majority users and miners decide to just avoid the latest version. - 11:06: "LOT=true does not split the chain. It strictly reduces the liklihood of that." - 11:06: "LOT=false has chainsplit risks, not LOT=true" - 08:59 "I guess it would be helpful to hear miners' answers to that question." Response: 09:01 "not sure why; miners don't decide anything in this regard it's more of `Taproot is activating. Please accelerate it if you can`" Reading the logs again I see some voices that do consider the right that users and miners have to run whatever version they want Response: 09:03 "I ask because you said something that's equivalent to `miners don't get to decide which version of core their run`." - T1, T2, T3, and T6 have language that assumes mass support for a UASF and then proceed to make conclusions on what is safer and easier to coordinate A voice in the discussion expressed the same point I'm making: 10:53 "I disagree with T1: i don't think there is any logical consequence in hardcoding LOT=true ensuring Taproot activation and even less ensuring no political shenanigans. We obviously need economic majority to run it and that would open way more political arguments that they bluntly take part in an UASF without any bad behaviour from miners." - 11:14 "we know people will run LOT=true regardless of the default, so it will be safer if LOT=true is made the default" - 11:18 "With LOT=true, attempted UASFs are not necessary" - 11:18 "why give them the ability to act maliciously in the first place?" Response:11:18"LOT=false does not; people choosing to run software that will enforce taproot under some reasonable circumstances provides the information. LOT=false just reduces the risk of unexpected results from resulting in danger." Response: 11:18 "LOT=false strictly increases the risks though.." Response: 11:18 "please stop saying that, there are tradeoffs both ways." - 11:11 "LOT=false gives miners the ability to decide [in response to someone saying that LOT=false gives everyone else in the community the ability to decide]" This quote is a bit more nuanced because the implication is that LOT=true doesn't give the ability to decide. But in reality they have the ability to decide to not upgrade. Users can also not upgrade to be in solidarity with miners to protect them from unfair distrust and aggression. All the arguments above for LOT=true are rooted in the assumption that everyone must upgrade to the latest version because of course they will...? But that's not a given. There are examples of people being aware that miners and users can run any version they want. I misjudged the number of people who know that LOT=true doesn't guarantee anything. - 11:17 "The LOT=True crowd seems to have an underlying assumption that a UASF will occur instead of something more orderly like Modern Softfork Activation suggested, why? I don't think chances of that happening are very high unless things play out similarly to Segwit but it doesn't look like that." - 11:17 "UASFs can be made much more difficult with a counter-UASF.... UASFs like this one and segwit relied on intolerant-minority effects" (I'm assuming counter-UASF means not upgrading as opposed to upgrading to a new client that rejects the activation flag) > There is the (unlikely but possible) possibility of a wasted year if LOT is > set to false and miners fail to activate. I'm not convinced by this > perception that LOT=true is antagonistic to miners. I actually think it > offers them clarity on what will happen over a year time period and removes > the need for coordinated or uncoordinated community UASF efforts on top of > LOT=false. If you look at https://taprootactivation.com/ no miners seem to be expressing any support at all for lot=true. To pre-empt the counter argument, I know that miners don't decide, I'm just using that poll as a proxy to estimate whether they would be antagonized by the promotion of LOT=true. I'm not a miner and I think the "fork will happen regardless of the consequences" attitude is antagonistic towards everyone in general, not just miners. The LOT=true activation mechanism may be tolerated today because Taproot has wide support. But in order to prevent future antagonistic behavior around future network changes (possibly more controversial ones) we should continue the norm of including miners in the activation process, as the friends they are. This idea that LOT=true provides clarity is another is another example of an argument rooted in the assumption that users will upgrade because of course they will. No activation mechanism provides ANY guarantees and neither does LOT=true so it's infair to frame it as if it does. This is your argument Michael, please don't take anything I say personally I'm just arguing the points. > It is a possible outcome but the likely outcome is that miners activate > Taproot before LOT is even relevant. I think it is prudent to prepare for the > unlikely but possible outcome that miners fail to activate and hence have > this discussion now rather than be unprepared for that eventuality. If LOT is > set to false in a software release there is the possibility (T2 in > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018380.html) > of individuals or a proportion of the community changing LOT to true. In > that sense setting LOT=false in a software release appears to be no more safe > than LOT=true. If a LOT=true client is released I think the likely outcome is that people won't upgrade at all and I would say that miners failing to activate will become more likely than you think, strictly due to a loud group promoting LOT=true. It's true that some will stubbornly run LOT=true regardless. But if they have not been provoked to do so then I would hope the community promotes unity and shuns needlessly conflictive attitudes to avoid the, admittedly inevitable, network split from gathering momentum (a counter-UASF). I hope individuals opt for unity and become intolerant (counter-UASF) of intolerance (unprovoked-UASF). > TL;DR It sounds like you agree with my recommendation to set LOT=false in > protocol implementations in my email :) Yes I do agree with the recommendation of LOT=false. Thank you for organizing the discussion. On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 3:12 AM Samson Mow <samson....@gmail.com> wrote: > > "An activation mechanism is a consensus change like any other change, can be > contentious like any other change, and we must resolve it like any other > change. Otherwise we risk arriving at the darkest timeline." > > Who's we here? By "we" I meant everyone involved in the discussion of the activation mechanism. The discussion is slowly growing and eventually has to reach social media. > > Release both and let the network decide. If two clients are released with matching activation parameters except for opposing LOT then LOT=true kind of spoils the LOT=false choice (only if LOT=true manages to gather support) because running LOT=false is being complicit/tolerant of the aggressive attitude of LOT=true. In the case of both being released I would opt for running neither and I hope most users and miners do too. Again, with the caveat that only if there is visible significant support for LOT=true. And yes, the "significant" is a subjective word and, based on risk appetite, is different for everyone. That's part of the issue. A funny metaphor is that if someone is visibly pissing in a pool I'm not going to swim on the other side of the pool, I just won't swim at all and go do whatever I was doing before. Cheers Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 7:18 AM Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > This is absolutely the case, however note that the activation method itself > is consensus code which executes as a part > of a fork, and one which deserves as much scrutiny as anything else. While > taproot is a model of how a soft-fork should > be designed, this doesn't imply anything about the consensus code which > represents the activation thereof. > > Hence all the debate around activation - ultimately its also defining a fork, > and given the politics around it, one > which almost certainly carries significantly more risk than Taproot. > > Note that I don't believe anyone is advocating for "try to activate, and if > it fails, move on". Various people have > various views on how conservative and timelines for what to do at that point, > but I believe most in this discussion are > OK with flag-day-based activation (given some level of care) if it becomes > clear Taproot is supported by a vast majority > of Bitcoin users and is only not activating due to lagging miner upgrades. > > Matt > > On 2/18/21 10:04, Keagan McClelland wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I think it's important for us to consider what is actually being considered > > for activation here. > > > > The designation of "soft fork" is accurate but I don't think it adequately > > conveys how non-intrusive a change like this > > is. All that taproot does (unless I'm completely missing something) is > > imbue a previously undefined script version with > > actual semantics. In order for a chain reorg to take place it would mean > > that someone would have to have a use case for > > that script version today. This is something I think that we can easily > > check by digging through the UTXO set or > > history. If anyone is using that script version, we absolutely should not > > be using it, but that doesn't mean that we > > can't switch to a script version that no one is actually using. > > > > If no one is even attempting to use the script version, then the change has > > no effect on whether a chain split occurs > > because there is simply no block that contains a transaction that only some > > of the network will accept. > > > > Furthermore, I don't know how Bitcoin can stand the test of time if we > > allow developers who rely on "undefined behavior" > > (which the taproot script version presently is) to exert tremendous > > influence over what code does or does not get run. > > This isn't a soft fork that makes some particular UTXO's unspendable. It > > isn't one that bans miners from collecting > > fees. It is a change that means that certain "always accept" transactions > > actually have real conditions you have to > > meet. I can't imagine a less intrusive change. > > > > On the other hand, choosing to let L=F be a somewhat final call sets a very > > real precedent that 10% of what I estimate > > to be 1% of bitcoin users can effectively block any change from here on > > forward. At that point we are saying that miners > > are in control of network consensus in ways they have not been up until > > now. I don't think this is a more desirable > > outcome to let ~0.1% of the network get to block /non-intrusive/ changes > > that the rest of the network wants. > > > > I can certainly live with an L=F attempt as a way to punt on the > > discussion, maybe the activation happens and this will > > all be fine. But if it doesn't, I hardly think that users of Bitcoin are > > just going to be like "well, guess that's it > > for Taproot". I have no idea what ensues at that point, but probably > > another community led UASF movement. > > > > I wasn't super well educated on this stuff back in '17 when Segwit went > > down, as I was new at that time, so if I'm > > missing something please say so. But from my point of view, we can't treat > > all soft forks as equal. > > > > Keagan > > > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 7:43 AM Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev > > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote: > > > > We've had several softforks in Bitcoin which, through the course of > > their activation, had a several-block reorg. That > > should be indication enough that we need to very carefully consider > > activation to ensure we reduce the risk of that as > > much as absolutely possible. Again, while I think Taproot is a huge > > improvement and am looking forward to being able to > > use it, getting unlucky and hitting a 4-block reorg that happens to > > include a double-spend and some PR around an > > exchange losing millions would be worse than having Taproot is good. > > > > Matt > > > > On 2/18/21 09:26, Michael Folkson wrote: > > > Thanks for your response Matt. It is a fair challenge. There is > > always going to be an element of risk with soft > > forks, > > > all we can do is attempt to minimize that risk. I would argue that > > risk has been minimized for Taproot. > > > > > > You know (better than I do in fact) that Bitcoin (and layers built > > on top of it) greatly benefit from upgrades > > such as > > > Taproot. To say we shouldn't do Taproot or any future soft forks > > because there is a small but real risk of chain > > splits > > > I think is shortsighted. Indeed I think even if we collectively > > decided not to do any future soft fork upgrades ever > > > again on this mailing list that wouldn't stop soft fork attempts > > from other people in future. > > > > > > I don't think there is anything else we can do to minimize that risk > > for the Taproot soft fork at this point > > though I'm > > > open to ideas. To reiterate that risk will never be zero. I don't > > think I see Bitcoin as fragile as you seem to > > (though > > > admittedly you have a much better understanding than me of what > > happened in 2017). > > > > > > The likely scenario for the Taproot soft fork is LOT turns out to be > > entirely irrelevant and miners activate Taproot > > > before it becomes relevant. And even the unlikely worst case > > scenario would only cause short term disruption and > > > wouldn't kill Bitcoin long term. > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 2:01 PM Matt Corallo > > <lf-li...@mattcorallo.com <mailto:lf-li...@mattcorallo.com> > > <mailto:lf-li...@mattcorallo.com <mailto:lf-li...@mattcorallo.com>>> > > wrote: > > > > > > If the eventual outcome is that different implementations (that > > have material *transaction processing* userbases, > > > and I’m not sure to what extent that’s true with Knots) ship > > different consensus rules, we should stop here > > and not > > > activate Taproot. Seriously. > > > > > > Bitcoin is a consensus system. The absolute worst outcome at all > > possible is to have it fall out of consensus. > > > > > > Matt > > > > > >> On Feb 18, 2021, at 08:11, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev > > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> > > >> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>>> wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> Right, that is one option. Personally I would prefer a Bitcoin > > Core release sets LOT=false (based on what I have > > >> heard from Bitcoin Core contributors) and a community effort > > releases a version with LOT=true. I don't think > > users > > >> should be forced to choose something they may have no context > > on before they are allowed to use Bitcoin Core. > > >> > > >> My current understanding is that roasbeef is planning to set > > LOT=false on btcd (an alternative protocol > > >> implementation to Bitcoin Core) and Luke Dashjr hasn't yet > > decided on Bitcoin Knots. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 11:52 AM ZmnSCPxj > > <zmnsc...@protonmail.com <mailto:zmnsc...@protonmail.com> > > <mailto:zmnsc...@protonmail.com <mailto:zmnsc...@protonmail.com>>> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Good morning all, > > >> > > >> > "An activation mechanism is a consensus change like any > > other change, can be contentious like any other > > >> change, and we must resolve it like any other change. > > Otherwise we risk arriving at the darkest timeline." > > >> > > > >> > Who's we here? > > >> > > > >> > Release both and let the network decide. > > >> > > >> A thing that could be done, without mandating either > > LOT=true or LOT=false, would be to have a release that > > >> requires a `taprootlot=1` or `taprootlot=0` and refuses to > > start if the parameter is not set. > > >> > > >> This assures everyone that neither choice is being forced > > on users, and instead what is being forced on > > users, > > >> is for users to make that choice themselves. > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> ZmnSCPxj > > >> > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 3:08 AM Michael Folkson via > > bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> > > >> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>>> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Thanks for your response Ariel. It would be useful if > > you responded to specific points I have made > > in the > > >> mailing list post or at least quote these ephemeral > > "people" you speak of. I don't know if you're responding > > >> to conversation on the IRC channel or on social media etc. > > >> > > > > >> > > > The argument comes from a naive assumption that users > > MUST upgrade to the choice that is submitted > > into > > >> code. But in fact this isn't true and some voices in this > > discussion need to be more humble about what users > > >> must or must not run. > > >> > > > > >> > > I personally have never made this assumption. Of course > > users aren't forced to run any particular > > software > > >> version, quite the opposite. Defaults set in software > > versions matter though as many users won't change > > them. > > >> > > > > >> > > > Does no one realize that it is a very possible > > outcome that if LOT=true is released there may be > > only a > > >> handful of people that begin running it while everyone else > > delays their upgrade (with the very good > > reason of > > >> not getting involved in politics) and a year later those > > handful of people just become stuck at the > > moment of > > >> MUST_SIGNAL, unable to mine new blocks? > > >> > > > > >> > > It is a possible outcome but the likely outcome is that > > miners activate Taproot before LOT is even > > >> relevant. I think it is prudent to prepare for the unlikely > > but possible outcome that miners fail to > > activate > > >> and hence have this discussion now rather than be > > unprepared for that eventuality. If LOT is set to > > false in a > > >> software release there is the possibility (T2 in > > >> > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018380.html > > > > <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018380.html> > > >> > > <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018380.html > > > > <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018380.html>>) > > of individuals or a > > >> proportion of the community changing LOT to true. In that > > sense setting LOT=false in a software release > > >> appears to be no more safe than LOT=true. > > >> > > > > >> > > > The result: a wasted year of waiting and a minority > > of people who didn't want to be lenient with > > miners > > >> by default. > > >> > > > > >> > > There is the (unlikely but possible) possibility of a > > wasted year if LOT is set to false and miners fail > > >> to activate. I'm not convinced by this perception that > > LOT=true is antagonistic to miners. I actually > > think it > > >> offers them clarity on what will happen over a year time > > period and removes the need for coordinated or > > >> uncoordinated community UASF efforts on top of LOT=false. > > >> > > > > >> > > > An activation mechanism is a consensus change like > > any other change, can be contentious like any other > > >> change, and we must resolve it like any other change. > > Otherwise we risk arriving at the darkest timeline. > > >> > > > > >> > > I don't know what you are recommending here to avoid > > "this darkest timeline". Open discussions have > > >> occurred and are continuing and in my mailing list post > > that you responded to **I recommended we propose > > >> LOT=false be set in protocol implementations such as > > Bitcoin Core**. I do think this apocalyptic language > > >> isn't particularly helpful. In an open consensus system > > discussion is healthy, we should prepare for bad or > > >> worst case scenarios in advance and doing so is not > > antagonistic or destructive. Mining pools have pledged > > >> support for Taproot but we don't build secure systems based > > on pledges of support, we build them to minimize > > >> trust in any human actors. We can be grateful that people > > like Alejandro have worked hard on > > >> taprootactivation.com <http://taprootactivation.com> > > <http://taprootactivation.com > > <http://taprootactivation.com>> (and this effort has informed the > > discussion) without > > >> taking pledges of support as cast iron guarantees. > > >> > > > > >> > > TL;DR It sounds like you agree with my recommendation > > to set LOT=false in protocol implementations in my > > >> email :) > > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 5:43 AM Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces > > <ariellua...@gmail.com > > <mailto:ariellua...@gmail.com> > > >> <mailto:ariellua...@gmail.com > > <mailto:ariellua...@gmail.com>>> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > Something what strikes me about the conversation is > > the emotion surrounding the letters UASF. > > >> > > > It appears as if people discuss UASF as if it's a > > massive tidal wave of support that is > > inevitable, like > > >> we saw during segwit activation. But the actual definition > > is "any activation that is not a MASF". > > >> > > > A UASF can consist of a single node, ten nodes, a > > thousand, half of all nodes, all business' nodes, or > > >> even all the non mining nodes. On another dimension it can > > have zero mining support, 51% support, 49% > > support, > > >> or any support right up against a miner activation > > threshold. > > >> > > > Hell a UASF doesn't even need code or even a single > > node running as long as it exists as a possibility > > >> in people's minds. > > >> > > > The only thing a UASF doesn't have is miner support > > above an agreed activation threshold (some number > > >> above %51). > > >> > > > I say this because it strikes me when people say that > > they are for LOT=true with the logic that > > since a > > >> UASF is guaranteed to happen then it's better to just make > > it default from the beginning. Words like > > >> coordination and safety are sometimes sprinkled into the > > argument. > > >> > > > The argument comes from a naive assumption that users > > MUST upgrade to the choice that is submitted > > into > > >> code. But in fact this isn't true and some voices in this > > discussion need to be more humble about what users > > >> must or must not run. > > >> > > > Does no one realize that it is a very possible > > outcome that if LOT=true is released there may be > > only a > > >> handful of people that begin running it while everyone else > > delays their upgrade (with the very good > > reason of > > >> not getting involved in politics) and a year later those > > handful of people just become stuck at the > > moment of > > >> MUST_SIGNAL, unable to mine new blocks? Or attracting a > > minority of miners, activating, and forking off > > into a > > >> minority fork. Then a lot=false could be started that ends > > up activating the feature now that the stubborn > > >> option has ran its course. > > >> > > > The result: a wasted year of waiting and a minority > > of people who didn't want to be lenient with > > miners > > >> by default. The chains could be called BitcoinLenient and > > BitcoinStubborn. > > >> > > > How is that strictly safer or more coordinated? > > >> > > > I may be in the minority, or maybe a silent majority, > > or maybe a majority that just hasn't considered > > >> this as a choice but honestly if there is contention about > > whether we're going to be stubborn or lenient > > with > > >> miners for Taproot and in the future then I prefer to just > > not activate anything at all. I'm fine for > > calling > > >> bitcoin ossified, accepting that segwit is Bitcoin's last > > network upgrade. Taproot is amazing but no new > > >> feature is worth a network split down the middle. > > >> > > > Maybe in 10 or 20 years, when other blockchains > > implement features like Taproot and many more, we will > > >> become envious enough to put aside our differences on how > > to behave towards miners and finally activate > > Taproot. > > >> > > > An activation mechanism is a consensus change like > > any other change, can be contentious like any other > > >> change, and we must resolve it like any other change. > > Otherwise we risk arriving at the darkest timeline. > > >> > > > Cheers > > >> > > > Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces > > >> > > > On Feb 17, 2021, at 7:05 AM, Michael Folkson via > > bitcoin-dev > > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> > > >> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>>> wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Yesterday (February 16th) we held a second meeting > > on Taproot > > >> > > > > activation on IRC which again was open to all. > > Despite what appeared > > >> > > > > to be majority support for LOT=false over LOT=true > > in the first > > >> > > > > meeting I (and others) thought the arguments had > > not been explored in > > >> > > > > depth and that we should have a follow up meeting > > almost entirely > > >> > > > > focused on whether LOT (lockinontimeout) should be > > set to true or > > >> > > > > false. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > The meeting was announced here: > > >> > > > > > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018380.html > > > > <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018380.html> > > >> > > <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018380.html > > > > <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018380.html>> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > In that mailing list post I outlined the arguments > > for LOT=true (T1 to > > >> > > > > T6) and arguments for LOT=false (F1 to F6) in their > > strongest form I > > >> > > > > could. David Harding responded with an additional > > argument for > > >> > > > > LOT=false (F7) here: > > >> > > > > > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018415.html > > > > <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018415.html> > > >> > > <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018415.html > > > > <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018415.html>> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > These meetings are very challenging given they are > > open to all, you > > >> > > > > don’t know who will attend and you don’t know most > > people’s views in > > >> > > > > advance. I tried to give time for both the LOT=true > > arguments and the > > >> > > > > LOT=false arguments to be discussed as I knew there > > was support for > > >> > > > > both. We only tried evaluating which had more > > support and which had > > >> > > > > more strong opposition towards the end of the > > meeting. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > The conversation log is here: > > >> > > > > http://gnusha.org/taproot-activation/2021-02-16.log > > <http://gnusha.org/taproot-activation/2021-02-16.log> > > <http://gnusha.org/taproot-activation/2021-02-16.log > > <http://gnusha.org/taproot-activation/2021-02-16.log>> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > (If you are so inclined you can watch a video of > > the meeting here. > > >> > > > > Thanks to the YouTube account “Bitcoin” for setting > > up the livestream: > > >> > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpl5q1ovMLM > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpl5q1ovMLM> > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpl5q1ovMLM > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpl5q1ovMLM>>) > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > A summary of the meeting was provided by Luke > > Dashjr on Mastodon here: > > >> > > > > > > https://bitcoinhackers.org/@lukedashjr/105742918779234566 > > <https://bitcoinhackers.org/@lukedashjr/105742918779234566> > > >> <https://bitcoinhackers.org/@lukedashjr/105742918779234566 > > <https://bitcoinhackers.org/@lukedashjr/105742918779234566>> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Today's #Bitcoin #Taproot meeting was IMO largely > > unproductive, but we > > >> > > > > did manage to come to consensus on everything but > > LockinOnTimeout. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Activation height range: 693504-745920 > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > MASF threshold: 1815/2016 blocks (90%) > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Keep in mind only ~100 people showed for the > > meetings, hardly > > >> > > > > representative of the entire community. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > So, these details remain JUST a proposal for now. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > It seems inevitable that there won't be consensus > > on LOT. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Everyone will have to choose for himself. :/ > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Personally I agree with most of this. I agree that > > there wasn’t > > >> > > > > overwhelming consensus for either LOT=true or > > LOT=false. However, from > > >> > > > > my perspective there was clearly more strong > > opposition (what would > > >> > > > > usually be deemed a NACK in Bitcoin Core review > > terminology) from > > >> > > > > Bitcoin Core contributors, Lightning developers and > > other community > > >> > > > > members against LOT=true than there was for > > LOT=false. Andrew Chow > > >> > > > > tried to summarize views from the meeting in this > > analysis: > > >> > > > > > > https://gist.github.com/achow101/3e179501290abb7049de198d46894c7c > > <https://gist.github.com/achow101/3e179501290abb7049de198d46894c7c> > > >> > > <https://gist.github.com/achow101/3e179501290abb7049de198d46894c7c > > <https://gist.github.com/achow101/3e179501290abb7049de198d46894c7c>> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > I am also aware of other current and previous > > Bitcoin Core > > >> > > > > contributors and Lightning developers who didn’t > > attend the meeting in > > >> > > > > person who are opposed to LOT=true. I don’t want to > > put them in the > > >> > > > > spotlight for no reason but if you go through the > > conversation logs of > > >> > > > > not only the meeting but the weeks of discussion > > prior to this meeting > > >> > > > > you will see their views evaluated on the > > ##taproot-activation > > >> > > > > channel. In addition, on taprootactivation.com > > <http://taprootactivation.com> > > <http://taprootactivation.com <http://taprootactivation.com>> some > > mining pools > > >> > > > > expressed a preference for lot=false though I don’t > > know how strong > > >> > > > > that preference was. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > I am only one voice but it is my current assessment > > that if we are to > > >> > > > > attempt to finalize Taproot activation parameters > > and propose them to > > >> > > > > the community at this time our only option is to > > propose LOT=false. > > >> > > > > Any further delay appears to me counterproductive > > in our collective > > >> > > > > aim to get the Taproot soft fork activated as early > > as possible. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Obviously others are free to disagree with that > > assessment and > > >> > > > > continue discussions but personally I will be > > attempting to avoid > > >> > > > > those discussions unless prominent new information > > comes to light or > > >> > > > > various specific individuals change their minds. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Next week we are planning a code review of the > > Bitcoin Core PR #19573 > > >> > > > > which was initially delayed because of this LOT > > discussion. As I’ve > > >> > > > > said previously that will be loosely following the > > format of the > > >> > > > > Bitcoin Core PR review club and will be lower level > > and more > > >> > > > > technical. That is planned for Tuesday February > > 23rd at 19:00 UTC on > > >> > > > > the IRC channel ##taproot-activation. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks to the meeting participants (and those who > > joined the > > >> > > > > discussion on the channel prior and post the > > meeting) for engaging > > >> > > > > productively and in good faith. > > >> > > > > >> > > -- > > >> > > Michael Folkson > > >> > > Email: michaelfolk...@gmail.com > > <mailto:michaelfolk...@gmail.com> <mailto:michaelfolk...@gmail.com > > <mailto:michaelfolk...@gmail.com>> > > >> > > Keybase: michaelfolkson > > >> > > PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3 > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > >> > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > >> > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> > > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> > > >> > > > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev> > > >> > > <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Michael Folkson > > >> Email: michaelfolk...@gmail.com > > <mailto:michaelfolk...@gmail.com> <mailto:michaelfolk...@gmail.com > > <mailto:michaelfolk...@gmail.com>> > > >> Keybase: michaelfolkson > > >> PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3 > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> bitcoin-dev mailing list > > >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> > > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> > > >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev> > > >> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Michael Folkson > > > Email: michaelfolk...@gmail.com <mailto:michaelfolk...@gmail.com> > > <mailto:michaelfolk...@gmail.com > > <mailto:michaelfolk...@gmail.com>> > > > Keybase: michaelfolkson > > > PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3 > > _______________________________________________ > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev> > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
