On 3/6/21 14:56, Michael Folkson wrote:
Hi Matt

> I'm really unsure that three months is a short enough time window that there wouldn't be a material effort to split the network with divergent consensus rules. Instead, a three month window is certainly long enough to organize and make a lot of noise around such an effort, given BIP 148 was organized and reached its peak within a similar such window.

I'm not sure either. I can't control anyone other than myself. I think (and Luke has also stated on IRC) that trying a UASF (LOT=true) during a "Speedy Trial" deployment would be crazy. I would certainly recommend no one tries that but I can't stop anyone. I'll repeat that soft forks have and always will contain some limited chain split risk regardless of activation mechanism. I think you are well intentioned but I'm not sure if you've fully grasped that yet. Maybe you have and I'm missing something.

> Worse, because the obvious alternative after a three month activation failure is a significant delay prior to activation, the vocal UASF minority may be encouraged to pursue such a route to avoid such a delay.

Again I can only speak for myself but I wouldn't support a UASF until this "fail fast" Speedy Trial has completed and failed. Luke agrees with that and other people (eg proofofkeags) on the ##uasf IRC channel have also supported this "Speedy Trial" proposal. If you want me (or anyone else for that matter) to guarantee there won't be an attempted UASF during a Speedy Trial deployment obviously nobody can do that. All I can say is that personally I won't support one.

That's great to hear.

The parameters for Speedy Trial are being hammered out on IRC as we speak. I'd encourage you to engage with those discussions. I'd really like to avoid a scenario where we have broad consensus on the details of Speedy Trial and then you come out the woodwork weeks later with either an alternative proposal or a criticism for how the details of Speedy Trial were finalized.
I've read your email as you're concerned about a UASF during a Speedy Trial deployment. Other than that I think (?) you support it and you are free to join the discussion on IRC if you have particular views on parameters. Personally I don't think those parameters should be chosen assuming there will be a UASF during the deployment but you can argue that case on IRC if you wish. All proposals you have personally put forward suffer from chain split risk in the face of a competing incompatible activation mechanism.

The conversations around the activation of Taproot have far outgrown a single IRC channel, let alone a single live conversation. Nor is having a discussion with under a few days latency "coming out of the wordwork weeks later". Frankly, I find this more than a little insulting. Bitcoin's consensus has never been decided in such a manner and I see no reason to start now.
bitcoin-dev mailing list

Reply via email to