One should not assume that those trying to avoid a chain split are against
Taproot.
There is a concerning widespread misperception in the community at large that
soft forks are inherently “backward compatible”. To many people this seems to
mean that, even without hash power enforcement, acti
Concept nack.
This has no advantage over bip8(true).
Bip9(false) is just bip9.
Thr only reasonable argument against bip8(true) is "some people may do
bip8(false) instead", which is a stypid argument applyable to any
activation method.
People against taproot should want code to forbid its activatio
Hi Ariel
Thanks for your reply with the link to the SMA proposal, which I had
missed previoulsy. It is indeed very similar.
I see that Speedy trial is currently gaining broad support, which is
good. I think my proposal with the threshold set to 51% instead of 80%
to change LOT=false to LOT=t
