I'd like to pre-register a comment that I don't think signet should be a
consideration for MTP vs height, since taproot is already activated on signet,
and there's no indication that ST will be used in the future (we should
continue our search for the ideal activation method)
Robert Spigler
Personal Fingerprint: BF0D 3C08 A439 5AC6 11C1 5395 B70B 4A77 F850 548F
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Sunday, April 4, 2021 5:31 AM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> So the only thing that seemed clear, using height as per bip8, it's not clear
> anymore.
> And, as usual, we're not talking about activation in general but about
> taproot activation, segwit activation...
>
> I won't make it to the meeting because I don't think I have much more to
> contribute that I haven't said already beyond perhaps: sigh.
> My arguments will probably ignored again, so it doesn't matter.
>
> On Sun, Apr 4, 2021, 06:39 Jeremy via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> We'll be having another meeting this Tuesday, as per
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-March/018699.html.
>> If you can't make it feel free to leave a comment on any agenda item below,
>> or if you think there are other things to be discussed.
>>
>> Agenda:
>>
>> 1. AJ's update to MTP time.
>>
>> Please review https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21377 as AJ updated it
>> substantially.
>>
>> The PR is now purely MTP based, and the state machine has been simplified.
>> This approach is intended to be compatible with a mandatory signaling period
>> (via a LAST_CHANCE change) and makes it easier to deploy ST on signets
>> (irrelevant for Taproot, because it is already active on all signets).
>>
>> 2. Selecting between MTP and Height
>>
>> In the previous meeting, there was no substantial publicly discussed benefit
>> to using MTPs over height. Since agenda item 1, there is now a tangible
>> benefit to using MTP.
>>
>> The changes AJ promulgated for MTP neutralizes the argument, mostly, that
>> MTP was easier to review. As such, the main conversation in this agenda item
>> is around the pros/cons of height or MTP and determining if we can reach
>> consensus on either approach.
>>
>> 3. Timeline Discussion
>> In all hope, we will reach consensus around item 2. Should that occur, we
>> can use this time to discuss a final selection on parameters, mindful of
>> Core's process.
>>
>> If the meeting doesn't reach rough consensus around item 2, it seems that we
>> may fall short on the proposed schedule from last time. In this section, we
>> can discuss realities around scheduling.
>>
>> 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
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
