Meeting Reminder: A few people have pinged me asking when the meeting is. It is in the title of the email, apologies if that was unclear.
19:00 UTC this Tuesday (12pm Pacific Time). If you would like to pre-register a comment please try to send it to the list today or tomorrow if possible, it will help with giving participants a chance to review any longer form content in advance of the meeting and ensure a productive conversation. Best, Jeremy -- @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin> <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 2:41 PM Jeremy <jlru...@mit.edu> wrote: > In response to the previous Taproot Activation Meeting, I noted that the > advance notice was insufficient and proposed having the proposed meeting > the following week, to consider the meeting last week as a "discussion", > and thereafter reserving a meeting slot fortnightly reserved. I've been > asked/volunteered in the ##taproot-activation IRC channel on freenode to > announce, assemble an agenda, and host this meeting. *If you plan to > attend please read the entire email as there are some specific instructions > for participation that have differed from past meetings.* > > I've attached an ICS file with scheduling this meeting for 10 repetitions > for your convenience. Subsequent meetings will hopefully be unnecessary, > but scheduling them in advance helps ensure a process that respects all > parties desire to participate. > > The purpose of this meeting is to serve as a checkpoint to raise any > blocking issues and to attempt to finalize parameter selection. As such, > I've attempted to make a guided agenda that should move towards > finalization rather than continuation of debate and makes the best use of > everyone's time. If there are topics missing or if I didn't accurately > capture the zeitgeist of discussion, please chime in with suggested changes > to the agenda. > > If you cannot attend the meeting you may per-register a comment by > replying to this email. You may also pre-register a comment here for any > reason for ease of reference during the meeting, but it is not required. So > that we can keep the meeting focused and adjust agenda accordingly, I'll > also request explicitly that certain categories of comment described below > be pre-registered. Please keep this thread limited to pre-registered > comments rather than responses to such comments, which will be addressed in > the meeting. > > For the meeting this coming Tuesday the plan is to attempt to finalize on: > > 1. Resolving any outstanding concerns around using a Speedy Trial to > attempt to activate Taproot that must be addressed. > > There seems to be diverse consensus on ST, as per > https://gist.github.com/michaelfolkson/92899f27f1ab30aa2ebee82314f8fe7f#gistcomment-3668460 > . > > *As such, please pre-register any concern about any ST variant at all by > responding below.* > > 2. Selecting between start/stop heights and times for a speedy trial. > > See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21377 > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21392. > > The focus of this discussion should be focused on blocking reasons to not > use time based parameters, the code review process, and timelines for being > able to utilize either activation method. > > It is already a widely acknowledged preference for heights over times from > a blank slate pure technical point of view, this discussion is intended to > be more pragmatic about safety, hitting the timelines we want to, and > shipping code. > > *As such, If you wish to advocate for MTP from a blank slate pure > technical point of view, please pre-register a comment below so we can > adjust the agenda ahead of time. * > > 3. Parameter Selection for start/stop/active points. > > Short of resolving height or time based start/stop, a discussion of > selecting acceptable parameters. We should get agreement on both sets of > height or time parameters irrespective of the resolution to 2, so that this > conversation can proceed independently. > > My personal pre-meeting suggestion to keep the discussion moving is that > we primarily discuss based on time (as it is the independent variable), and > simply use the next (not previous) starting signalling period based on a > projection of 10 minute average blocks from today's date to determine the > specific height parameters. *Please pre-register if you have a different > suggestion.* > > 4. Parameter flexibility. > > If we select parameters but, for some reason, need to adjust by a week or > two, does this invalidate all ACKs on parameter selection? Or can we agree > upon some slack in the timeline to accommodate unforeseen development > issues. > > 5. Simultaneous UASF. > > There still seems to be some activity on the front of a simultaneous to ST > UASF. As this has the potential to derail the meeting if there should be > UASF at all (which I think is orthogonal to the goals of this meeting), and > given many participants unfamiliarity with the proposal for a UASF, > *I ask that any issues you wish to raise in this section of the meeting or > pertaining to UASF in a prior section be made in a detailed pre-registered > comment. * > > I think it is regrettable to place this onus on the UASF organizers, but > strong communication to the community about plans and intentions seem to be > essential and in line with what would be required for a UASF to be safe and > successful in any case. I also recognize that some participants (on either > side) may not wish to discuss UASF at all in this meeting, but I think that > it is an important part of the activation discussion irrespective of > personal views. > > > As a reminder, the channel is also open for ongoing discussion 24/7, and > there is a web chat client here: > > https://webchat.freenode.net/?channel=##taproot-activation > > Best, > > Jeremy > > > -- > @JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin> > <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin> >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
