Jeremy via bitcoin-dev <[email protected]> writes: > We had a very productive meeting today. Here is a summary of the meeting -- > I've done my best to > summarize in an unbiased way. Thank you to everyone who attended. > > 1. On the use of a speedy trial variant: > > - There are no new objections to speedy trial generally. > - There is desire to know if Rusty retracts or reaffirms his NACK in light > of the responses.
I do not withdraw my NACK (and kudos: there have been few attempts to pressure me to do so!). The core question always was: what do we do if miners fail to activate? Luke-Jr takes the approach that "we (i.e developers) ensure it activates anyway". I take the approach that "the users must make a direct intervention". Speedy Trial takes the approach that "let's pretend we didn't *actually* ask them". It's totally a political approach, to avoid facing the awkward question. Since I believe that such prevaricating makes a future crisis less predictable, I am forced to conclude that it makes bitcoin less robust. Personally, I think the compromise position is using LOT=false and having those such as Luke and myself continue working on a LOT=true branch for future consideration. It's less than optimal, but I appreciate that people want Taproot activated more than they want the groundwork future upgrades. I hope that helps, Rusty. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
