On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 02:31:13PM +0930, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> >> 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
On 4/7/21 01:01, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
Ryan Grant writes:
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 11:58 PM Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev
What ST is saying is that a strategy of avoiding unnecessary risk is
stronger than a strategy of brinkmanship when brinkmanship wasn't
our only option.
You may activate any time you want.
e
From: bitcoin-dev On Behalf Of
Claus Ehrenberg via bitcoin-dev
Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 6:42 AM
To: Rusty Russell ; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] March 23rd 2021 Taproot Activation Meeting Notes
As a user, I think
As a user, I think it's very important for me to know if Taproot is
eventually coming or not. So why not make it so that if _either_ miners
_or_ users decide for Taproot, it will activate no matter what. Accepting a
chain split is imo the fairest way to 'resolve the conflict' (it can't be
resolved
Ryan Grant writes:
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 11:58 PM Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
>> The core question always was: what do we do if miners fail to activate?
>>
>> [...] Speedy Trial takes the approach that "let's pretend we didn't
>> *actually* ask [miners]".
>
> What ST is saying is
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 11:58 PM Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> The core question always was: what do we do if miners fail to activate?
>
> [...] Speedy Trial takes the approach that "let's pretend we didn't
> *actually* ask [miners]".
What ST is saying is that a strategy of avoiding
Jeremy via bitcoin-dev 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
I think it's fine to move the dates back two weeks in that case; it was
unclear from the meeting transcript if people thought release would be may
1st or startheight, but via parameter flexibility we can shift everything
back 2 weeks if we want.
W.r.t. the selection of MTP there's no funny
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 08:46:54PM -0700, Jeremy via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 3. Parameter Selection
> - There is broad agreement that we should target something like a May 1st
> release, with 1 week from rc1 starttime/startheight,
> and 3 months + delta stoptime/stopheight (6 retargetting
> Your response strikes me as ingenuine with regards to "other projects" as it
> is a project I understand you to be one of the parties spearheading. I think
> it's misleading to not clarify that in your response.
I support Taproot activation and any project that can help bring that
about. As I
Michael,
Your response strikes me as ingenuine with regards to "other projects" as
it is a project I understand you to be one of the parties spearheading. I
think it's misleading to not clarify that in your response.
Your NACK on MTP based ST does not have any merit. The only argument you
made
Thanks for this Jeremy. I agree with the vast majority of this.
For those that missed yesterday's meeting the meeting log is here:
http://gnusha.org/taproot-activation/2021-03-23.log
Jeremy also livestreamed the meeting on his Twitch channel:
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/960346848
On the choice
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
