Matt Corallo [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: đź“… Original date posted:2021-02-18 đź“ť Original message:We've had several ...
đź“… Original date posted:2021-02-18
đź“ť Original message:We've had several softforks in Bitcoin which, through the course of their activation, had a several-block reorg. That
should be indication enough that we need to very carefully consider activation to ensure we reduce the risk of that as
much as absolutely possible. Again, while I think Taproot is a huge improvement and am looking forward to being able to
use it, getting unlucky and hitting a 4-block reorg that happens to include a double-spend and some PR around an
exchange losing millions would be worse than having Taproot is good.
Matt
On 2/18/21 09:26, Michael Folkson wrote:
> Thanks for your response Matt. It is a fair challenge. There is always going to be an element of risk with soft forks,
> all we can do is attempt to minimize that risk. I would argue that risk has been minimized for Taproot.
>
> You know (better than I do in fact) that Bitcoin (and layers built on top of it) greatly benefit from upgrades such as
> Taproot. To say we shouldn't do Taproot or any future soft forks because there is a small but real risk of chain splits
> I think is shortsighted. Indeed I think even if we collectively decided not to do any future soft fork upgrades ever
> again on this mailing list that wouldn't stop soft fork attempts from other people in future.
>
> I don't think there is anything else we can do to minimize that risk for the Taproot soft fork at this point though I'm
> open to ideas. To reiterate that risk will never be zero. I don't think I see Bitcoin as fragile as you seem to (though
> admittedly you have a much better understanding than me of what happened in 2017).
>
> The likely scenario for the Taproot soft fork is LOT turns out to be entirely irrelevant and miners activate Taproot
> before it becomes relevant. And even the unlikely worst case scenario would only cause short term disruption and
> wouldn't kill Bitcoin long term.
>
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 2:01 PM Matt Corallo <lf-lists at mattcorallo.com <mailto:lf-lists at mattcorallo.com>> wrote:
>
> If the eventual outcome is that different implementations (that have material *transaction processing* userbases,
> and I’m not sure to what extent that’s true with Knots) ship different consensus rules, we should stop here and not
> activate Taproot. Seriously.
>
> Bitcoin is a consensus system. The absolute worst outcome at all possible is to have it fall out of consensus.
>
> Matt
>
>> On Feb 18, 2021, at 08:11, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>>
>> 
>> Right, that is one option. Personally I would prefer a Bitcoin Core release sets LOT=false (based on what I have
>> heard from Bitcoin Core contributors) and a community effort releases a version with LOT=true. I don't think users
>> should be forced to choose something they may have no context on before they are allowed to use Bitcoin Core.
>>
>> My current understanding is that roasbeef is planning to set LOT=false on btcd (an alternative protocol
>> implementation to Bitcoin Core) and Luke Dashjr hasn't yet decided on Bitcoin Knots.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 11:52 AM ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com <mailto:ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Good morning all,
>>
>> > "An activation mechanism is a consensus change like any other change, can be contentious like any other
>> change, and we must resolve it like any other change. Otherwise we risk arriving at the darkest timeline."
>> >
>> > Who's we here?
>> >
>> > Release both and let the network decide.
>>
>> A thing that could be done, without mandating either LOT=true or LOT=false, would be to have a release that
>> requires a `taprootlot=1` or `taprootlot=0` and refuses to start if the parameter is not set.
>>
>> This assures everyone that neither choice is being forced on users, and instead what is being forced on users,
>> is for users to make that choice themselves.
>>
>> Regards,
>> ZmnSCPxj
>>
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 3:08 AM Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Thanks for your response Ariel. It would be useful if you responded to specific points I have made in the
>> mailing list post or at least quote these ephemeral "people" you speak of. I don't know if you're responding
>> to conversation on the IRC channel or on social media etc.
>> > >
>> > > > The argument comes from a naive assumption that users MUST upgrade to the choice that is submitted into
>> code. But in fact this isn't true and some voices in this discussion need to be more humble about what users
>> must or must not run.
>> > >
>> > > I personally have never made this assumption. Of course users aren't forced to run any particular software
>> version, quite the opposite. Defaults set in software versions matter though as many users won't change them.
>> > >
>> > > > Does no one realize that it is a very possible outcome that if LOT=true is released there may be only a
>> handful of people that begin running it while everyone else delays their upgrade (with the very good reason of
>> not getting involved in politics) and a year later those handful of people just become stuck at the moment of
>> MUST_SIGNAL, unable to mine new blocks?
>> > >
>> > > It is a possible outcome but the likely outcome is that miners activate Taproot before LOT is even
>> relevant. I think it is prudent to prepare for the unlikely but possible outcome that miners fail to activate
>> and hence have this discussion now rather than be unprepared for that eventuality. If LOT is set to false in a
>> software release there is the possibility (T2 in
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018380.html
>> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018380.html>;) of individuals or a
>> proportion of the community changing LOT to true. In that sense setting LOT=false in a software release
>> appears to be no more safe than LOT=true.
>> > >
>> > > > The result: a wasted year of waiting and a minority of people who didn't want to be lenient with miners
>> by default.
>> > >
>> > > There is the (unlikely but possible) possibility of a wasted year if LOT is set to false and miners fail
>> to activate. I'm not convinced by this perception that LOT=true is antagonistic to miners. I actually think it
>> offers them clarity on what will happen over a year time period and removes the need for coordinated or
>> uncoordinated community UASF efforts on top of LOT=false.
>> > >
>> > > > An activation mechanism is a consensus change like any other change, can be contentious like any other
>> change, and we must resolve it like any other change. Otherwise we risk arriving at the darkest timeline.
>> > >
>> > > I don't know what you are recommending here to avoid "this darkest timeline". Open discussions have
>> occurred and are continuing and in my mailing list post that you responded to **I recommended we propose
>> LOT=false be set in protocol implementations such as Bitcoin Core**. I do think this apocalyptic language
>> isn't particularly helpful. In an open consensus system discussion is healthy, we should prepare for bad or
>> worst case scenarios in advance and doing so is not antagonistic or destructive. Mining pools have pledged
>> support for Taproot but we don't build secure systems based on pledges of support, we build them to minimize
>> trust in any human actors. We can be grateful that people like Alejandro have worked hard on
>> taprootactivation.com <http://taprootactivation.com>; (and this effort has informed the discussion) without
>> taking pledges of support as cast iron guarantees.
>> > >
>> > > TL;DR It sounds like you agree with my recommendation to set LOT=false in protocol implementations in my
>> email :)
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 5:43 AM Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces at gmail.com
>> <mailto:arielluaces at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Something what strikes me about the conversation is the emotion surrounding the letters UASF.
>> > > > It appears as if people discuss UASF as if it's a massive tidal wave of support that is inevitable, like
>> we saw during segwit activation. But the actual definition is "any activation that is not a MASF".
>> > > > A UASF can consist of a single node, ten nodes, a thousand, half of all nodes, all business' nodes, or
>> even all the non mining nodes. On another dimension it can have zero mining support, 51% support, 49% support,
>> or any support right up against a miner activation threshold.
>> > > > Hell a UASF doesn't even need code or even a single node running as long as it exists as a possibility
>> in people's minds.
>> > > > The only thing a UASF doesn't have is miner support above an agreed activation threshold (some number
>> above %51).
>> > > > I say this because it strikes me when people say that they are for LOT=true with the logic that since a
>> UASF is guaranteed to happen then it's better to just make it default from the beginning. Words like
>> coordination and safety are sometimes sprinkled into the argument.
>> > > > The argument comes from a naive assumption that users MUST upgrade to the choice that is submitted into
>> code. But in fact this isn't true and some voices in this discussion need to be more humble about what users
>> must or must not run.
>> > > > Does no one realize that it is a very possible outcome that if LOT=true is released there may be only a
>> handful of people that begin running it while everyone else delays their upgrade (with the very good reason of
>> not getting involved in politics) and a year later those handful of people just become stuck at the moment of
>> MUST_SIGNAL, unable to mine new blocks? Or attracting a minority of miners, activating, and forking off into a
>> minority fork. Then a lot=false could be started that ends up activating the feature now that the stubborn
>> option has ran its course.
>> > > > The result: a wasted year of waiting and a minority of people who didn't want to be lenient with miners
>> by default. The chains could be called BitcoinLenient and BitcoinStubborn.
>> > > > How is that strictly safer or more coordinated?
>> > > > I may be in the minority, or maybe a silent majority, or maybe a majority that just hasn't considered
>> this as a choice but honestly if there is contention about whether we're going to be stubborn or lenient with
>> miners for Taproot and in the future then I prefer to just not activate anything at all. I'm fine for calling
>> bitcoin ossified, accepting that segwit is Bitcoin's last network upgrade. Taproot is amazing but no new
>> feature is worth a network split down the middle.
>> > > > Maybe in 10 or 20 years, when other blockchains implement features like Taproot and many more, we will
>> become envious enough to put aside our differences on how to behave towards miners and finally activate Taproot.
>> > > > An activation mechanism is a consensus change like any other change, can be contentious like any other
>> change, and we must resolve it like any other change. Otherwise we risk arriving at the darkest timeline.
>> > > > Cheers
>> > > > Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces
>> > > > On Feb 17, 2021, at 7:05 AM, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Yesterday (February 16th) we held a second meeting on Taproot
>> > > > > activation on IRC which again was open to all. Despite what appeared
>> > > > > to be majority support for LOT=false over LOT=true in the first
>> > > > > meeting I (and others) thought the arguments had not been explored in
>> > > > > depth and that we should have a follow up meeting almost entirely
>> > > > > focused on whether LOT (lockinontimeout) should be set to true or
>> > > > > false.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The meeting was announced here:
>> > > > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018380.html
>> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018380.html>;
>> > > > >
>> > > > > In that mailing list post I outlined the arguments for LOT=true (T1 to
>> > > > > T6) and arguments for LOT=false (F1 to F6) in their strongest form I
>> > > > > could. David Harding responded with an additional argument for
>> > > > > LOT=false (F7) here:
>> > > > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018415.html
>> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018415.html>;
>> > > > >
>> > > > > These meetings are very challenging given they are open to all, you
>> > > > > don’t know who will attend and you don’t know most people’s views in
>> > > > > advance. I tried to give time for both the LOT=true arguments and the
>> > > > > LOT=false arguments to be discussed as I knew there was support for
>> > > > > both. We only tried evaluating which had more support and which had
>> > > > > more strong opposition towards the end of the meeting.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The conversation log is here:
>> > > > > http://gnusha.org/taproot-activation/2021-02-16.log <http://gnusha.org/taproot-activation/2021-02-16.log>;
>> > > > >
>> > > > > (If you are so inclined you can watch a video of the meeting here.
>> > > > > Thanks to the YouTube account “Bitcoin” for setting up the livestream:
>> > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpl5q1ovMLM <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpl5q1ovMLM>;)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > A summary of the meeting was provided by Luke Dashjr on Mastodon here:
>> > > > > https://bitcoinhackers.org/@lukedashjr/105742918779234566
>> <https://bitcoinhackers.org/@lukedashjr/105742918779234566>;
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Today's #Bitcoin #Taproot meeting was IMO largely unproductive, but we
>> > > > > did manage to come to consensus on everything but LockinOnTimeout.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Activation height range: 693504-745920
>> > > > >
>> > > > > MASF threshold: 1815/2016 blocks (90%)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Keep in mind only ~100 people showed for the meetings, hardly
>> > > > > representative of the entire community.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > So, these details remain JUST a proposal for now.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > It seems inevitable that there won't be consensus on LOT.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Everyone will have to choose for himself. :/
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Personally I agree with most of this. I agree that there wasn’t
>> > > > > overwhelming consensus for either LOT=true or LOT=false. However, from
>> > > > > my perspective there was clearly more strong opposition (what would
>> > > > > usually be deemed a NACK in Bitcoin Core review terminology) from
>> > > > > Bitcoin Core contributors, Lightning developers and other community
>> > > > > members against LOT=true than there was for LOT=false. Andrew Chow
>> > > > > tried to summarize views from the meeting in this analysis:
>> > > > > https://gist.github.com/achow101/3e179501290abb7049de198d46894c7c
>> <https://gist.github.com/achow101/3e179501290abb7049de198d46894c7c>;
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I am also aware of other current and previous Bitcoin Core
>> > > > > contributors and Lightning developers who didn’t attend the meeting in
>> > > > > person who are opposed to LOT=true. I don’t want to put them in the
>> > > > > spotlight for no reason but if you go through the conversation logs of
>> > > > > not only the meeting but the weeks of discussion prior to this meeting
>> > > > > you will see their views evaluated on the ##taproot-activation
>> > > > > channel. In addition, on taprootactivation.com <http://taprootactivation.com>; some mining pools
>> > > > > expressed a preference for lot=false though I don’t know how strong
>> > > > > that preference was.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I am only one voice but it is my current assessment that if we are to
>> > > > > attempt to finalize Taproot activation parameters and propose them to
>> > > > > the community at this time our only option is to propose LOT=false.
>> > > > > Any further delay appears to me counterproductive in our collective
>> > > > > aim to get the Taproot soft fork activated as early as possible.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Obviously others are free to disagree with that assessment and
>> > > > > continue discussions but personally I will be attempting to avoid
>> > > > > those discussions unless prominent new information comes to light or
>> > > > > various specific individuals change their minds.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Next week we are planning a code review of the Bitcoin Core PR #19573
>> > > > > which was initially delayed because of this LOT discussion. As I’ve
>> > > > > said previously that will be loosely following the format of the
>> > > > > Bitcoin Core PR review club and will be lower level and more
>> > > > > technical. That is planned for Tuesday February 23rd at 19:00 UTC on
>> > > > > the IRC channel ##taproot-activation.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thanks to the meeting participants (and those who joined the
>> > > > > discussion on the channel prior and post the meeting) for engaging
>> > > > > productively and in good faith.
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Michael Folkson
>> > > Email: michaelfolkson at gmail.com <mailto:michaelfolkson at gmail.com>
>> > > Keybase: michaelfolkson
>> > > PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> > > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>> > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>;
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael Folkson
>> Email: michaelfolkson at gmail.com <mailto:michaelfolkson at gmail.com>
>> Keybase: michaelfolkson
>> PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>;
>
>
>
> --
> Michael Folkson
> Email: michaelfolkson at gmail.com <mailto:michaelfolkson at gmail.com>
> Keybase: michaelfolkson
> PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3
đź“ť Original message:We've had several softforks in Bitcoin which, through the course of their activation, had a several-block reorg. That
should be indication enough that we need to very carefully consider activation to ensure we reduce the risk of that as
much as absolutely possible. Again, while I think Taproot is a huge improvement and am looking forward to being able to
use it, getting unlucky and hitting a 4-block reorg that happens to include a double-spend and some PR around an
exchange losing millions would be worse than having Taproot is good.
Matt
On 2/18/21 09:26, Michael Folkson wrote:
> Thanks for your response Matt. It is a fair challenge. There is always going to be an element of risk with soft forks,
> all we can do is attempt to minimize that risk. I would argue that risk has been minimized for Taproot.
>
> You know (better than I do in fact) that Bitcoin (and layers built on top of it) greatly benefit from upgrades such as
> Taproot. To say we shouldn't do Taproot or any future soft forks because there is a small but real risk of chain splits
> I think is shortsighted. Indeed I think even if we collectively decided not to do any future soft fork upgrades ever
> again on this mailing list that wouldn't stop soft fork attempts from other people in future.
>
> I don't think there is anything else we can do to minimize that risk for the Taproot soft fork at this point though I'm
> open to ideas. To reiterate that risk will never be zero. I don't think I see Bitcoin as fragile as you seem to (though
> admittedly you have a much better understanding than me of what happened in 2017).
>
> The likely scenario for the Taproot soft fork is LOT turns out to be entirely irrelevant and miners activate Taproot
> before it becomes relevant. And even the unlikely worst case scenario would only cause short term disruption and
> wouldn't kill Bitcoin long term.
>
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 2:01 PM Matt Corallo <lf-lists at mattcorallo.com <mailto:lf-lists at mattcorallo.com>> wrote:
>
> If the eventual outcome is that different implementations (that have material *transaction processing* userbases,
> and I’m not sure to what extent that’s true with Knots) ship different consensus rules, we should stop here and not
> activate Taproot. Seriously.
>
> Bitcoin is a consensus system. The absolute worst outcome at all possible is to have it fall out of consensus.
>
> Matt
>
>> On Feb 18, 2021, at 08:11, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>>
>> 
>> Right, that is one option. Personally I would prefer a Bitcoin Core release sets LOT=false (based on what I have
>> heard from Bitcoin Core contributors) and a community effort releases a version with LOT=true. I don't think users
>> should be forced to choose something they may have no context on before they are allowed to use Bitcoin Core.
>>
>> My current understanding is that roasbeef is planning to set LOT=false on btcd (an alternative protocol
>> implementation to Bitcoin Core) and Luke Dashjr hasn't yet decided on Bitcoin Knots.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 11:52 AM ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com <mailto:ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Good morning all,
>>
>> > "An activation mechanism is a consensus change like any other change, can be contentious like any other
>> change, and we must resolve it like any other change. Otherwise we risk arriving at the darkest timeline."
>> >
>> > Who's we here?
>> >
>> > Release both and let the network decide.
>>
>> A thing that could be done, without mandating either LOT=true or LOT=false, would be to have a release that
>> requires a `taprootlot=1` or `taprootlot=0` and refuses to start if the parameter is not set.
>>
>> This assures everyone that neither choice is being forced on users, and instead what is being forced on users,
>> is for users to make that choice themselves.
>>
>> Regards,
>> ZmnSCPxj
>>
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 3:08 AM Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Thanks for your response Ariel. It would be useful if you responded to specific points I have made in the
>> mailing list post or at least quote these ephemeral "people" you speak of. I don't know if you're responding
>> to conversation on the IRC channel or on social media etc.
>> > >
>> > > > The argument comes from a naive assumption that users MUST upgrade to the choice that is submitted into
>> code. But in fact this isn't true and some voices in this discussion need to be more humble about what users
>> must or must not run.
>> > >
>> > > I personally have never made this assumption. Of course users aren't forced to run any particular software
>> version, quite the opposite. Defaults set in software versions matter though as many users won't change them.
>> > >
>> > > > Does no one realize that it is a very possible outcome that if LOT=true is released there may be only a
>> handful of people that begin running it while everyone else delays their upgrade (with the very good reason of
>> not getting involved in politics) and a year later those handful of people just become stuck at the moment of
>> MUST_SIGNAL, unable to mine new blocks?
>> > >
>> > > It is a possible outcome but the likely outcome is that miners activate Taproot before LOT is even
>> relevant. I think it is prudent to prepare for the unlikely but possible outcome that miners fail to activate
>> and hence have this discussion now rather than be unprepared for that eventuality. If LOT is set to false in a
>> software release there is the possibility (T2 in
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018380.html
>> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018380.html>;) of individuals or a
>> proportion of the community changing LOT to true. In that sense setting LOT=false in a software release
>> appears to be no more safe than LOT=true.
>> > >
>> > > > The result: a wasted year of waiting and a minority of people who didn't want to be lenient with miners
>> by default.
>> > >
>> > > There is the (unlikely but possible) possibility of a wasted year if LOT is set to false and miners fail
>> to activate. I'm not convinced by this perception that LOT=true is antagonistic to miners. I actually think it
>> offers them clarity on what will happen over a year time period and removes the need for coordinated or
>> uncoordinated community UASF efforts on top of LOT=false.
>> > >
>> > > > An activation mechanism is a consensus change like any other change, can be contentious like any other
>> change, and we must resolve it like any other change. Otherwise we risk arriving at the darkest timeline.
>> > >
>> > > I don't know what you are recommending here to avoid "this darkest timeline". Open discussions have
>> occurred and are continuing and in my mailing list post that you responded to **I recommended we propose
>> LOT=false be set in protocol implementations such as Bitcoin Core**. I do think this apocalyptic language
>> isn't particularly helpful. In an open consensus system discussion is healthy, we should prepare for bad or
>> worst case scenarios in advance and doing so is not antagonistic or destructive. Mining pools have pledged
>> support for Taproot but we don't build secure systems based on pledges of support, we build them to minimize
>> trust in any human actors. We can be grateful that people like Alejandro have worked hard on
>> taprootactivation.com <http://taprootactivation.com>; (and this effort has informed the discussion) without
>> taking pledges of support as cast iron guarantees.
>> > >
>> > > TL;DR It sounds like you agree with my recommendation to set LOT=false in protocol implementations in my
>> email :)
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 5:43 AM Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces at gmail.com
>> <mailto:arielluaces at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Something what strikes me about the conversation is the emotion surrounding the letters UASF.
>> > > > It appears as if people discuss UASF as if it's a massive tidal wave of support that is inevitable, like
>> we saw during segwit activation. But the actual definition is "any activation that is not a MASF".
>> > > > A UASF can consist of a single node, ten nodes, a thousand, half of all nodes, all business' nodes, or
>> even all the non mining nodes. On another dimension it can have zero mining support, 51% support, 49% support,
>> or any support right up against a miner activation threshold.
>> > > > Hell a UASF doesn't even need code or even a single node running as long as it exists as a possibility
>> in people's minds.
>> > > > The only thing a UASF doesn't have is miner support above an agreed activation threshold (some number
>> above %51).
>> > > > I say this because it strikes me when people say that they are for LOT=true with the logic that since a
>> UASF is guaranteed to happen then it's better to just make it default from the beginning. Words like
>> coordination and safety are sometimes sprinkled into the argument.
>> > > > The argument comes from a naive assumption that users MUST upgrade to the choice that is submitted into
>> code. But in fact this isn't true and some voices in this discussion need to be more humble about what users
>> must or must not run.
>> > > > Does no one realize that it is a very possible outcome that if LOT=true is released there may be only a
>> handful of people that begin running it while everyone else delays their upgrade (with the very good reason of
>> not getting involved in politics) and a year later those handful of people just become stuck at the moment of
>> MUST_SIGNAL, unable to mine new blocks? Or attracting a minority of miners, activating, and forking off into a
>> minority fork. Then a lot=false could be started that ends up activating the feature now that the stubborn
>> option has ran its course.
>> > > > The result: a wasted year of waiting and a minority of people who didn't want to be lenient with miners
>> by default. The chains could be called BitcoinLenient and BitcoinStubborn.
>> > > > How is that strictly safer or more coordinated?
>> > > > I may be in the minority, or maybe a silent majority, or maybe a majority that just hasn't considered
>> this as a choice but honestly if there is contention about whether we're going to be stubborn or lenient with
>> miners for Taproot and in the future then I prefer to just not activate anything at all. I'm fine for calling
>> bitcoin ossified, accepting that segwit is Bitcoin's last network upgrade. Taproot is amazing but no new
>> feature is worth a network split down the middle.
>> > > > Maybe in 10 or 20 years, when other blockchains implement features like Taproot and many more, we will
>> become envious enough to put aside our differences on how to behave towards miners and finally activate Taproot.
>> > > > An activation mechanism is a consensus change like any other change, can be contentious like any other
>> change, and we must resolve it like any other change. Otherwise we risk arriving at the darkest timeline.
>> > > > Cheers
>> > > > Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces
>> > > > On Feb 17, 2021, at 7:05 AM, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Yesterday (February 16th) we held a second meeting on Taproot
>> > > > > activation on IRC which again was open to all. Despite what appeared
>> > > > > to be majority support for LOT=false over LOT=true in the first
>> > > > > meeting I (and others) thought the arguments had not been explored in
>> > > > > depth and that we should have a follow up meeting almost entirely
>> > > > > focused on whether LOT (lockinontimeout) should be set to true or
>> > > > > false.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The meeting was announced here:
>> > > > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018380.html
>> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018380.html>;
>> > > > >
>> > > > > In that mailing list post I outlined the arguments for LOT=true (T1 to
>> > > > > T6) and arguments for LOT=false (F1 to F6) in their strongest form I
>> > > > > could. David Harding responded with an additional argument for
>> > > > > LOT=false (F7) here:
>> > > > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018415.html
>> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018415.html>;
>> > > > >
>> > > > > These meetings are very challenging given they are open to all, you
>> > > > > don’t know who will attend and you don’t know most people’s views in
>> > > > > advance. I tried to give time for both the LOT=true arguments and the
>> > > > > LOT=false arguments to be discussed as I knew there was support for
>> > > > > both. We only tried evaluating which had more support and which had
>> > > > > more strong opposition towards the end of the meeting.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The conversation log is here:
>> > > > > http://gnusha.org/taproot-activation/2021-02-16.log <http://gnusha.org/taproot-activation/2021-02-16.log>;
>> > > > >
>> > > > > (If you are so inclined you can watch a video of the meeting here.
>> > > > > Thanks to the YouTube account “Bitcoin” for setting up the livestream:
>> > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpl5q1ovMLM <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpl5q1ovMLM>;)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > A summary of the meeting was provided by Luke Dashjr on Mastodon here:
>> > > > > https://bitcoinhackers.org/@lukedashjr/105742918779234566
>> <https://bitcoinhackers.org/@lukedashjr/105742918779234566>;
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Today's #Bitcoin #Taproot meeting was IMO largely unproductive, but we
>> > > > > did manage to come to consensus on everything but LockinOnTimeout.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Activation height range: 693504-745920
>> > > > >
>> > > > > MASF threshold: 1815/2016 blocks (90%)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Keep in mind only ~100 people showed for the meetings, hardly
>> > > > > representative of the entire community.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > So, these details remain JUST a proposal for now.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > It seems inevitable that there won't be consensus on LOT.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Everyone will have to choose for himself. :/
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Personally I agree with most of this. I agree that there wasn’t
>> > > > > overwhelming consensus for either LOT=true or LOT=false. However, from
>> > > > > my perspective there was clearly more strong opposition (what would
>> > > > > usually be deemed a NACK in Bitcoin Core review terminology) from
>> > > > > Bitcoin Core contributors, Lightning developers and other community
>> > > > > members against LOT=true than there was for LOT=false. Andrew Chow
>> > > > > tried to summarize views from the meeting in this analysis:
>> > > > > https://gist.github.com/achow101/3e179501290abb7049de198d46894c7c
>> <https://gist.github.com/achow101/3e179501290abb7049de198d46894c7c>;
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I am also aware of other current and previous Bitcoin Core
>> > > > > contributors and Lightning developers who didn’t attend the meeting in
>> > > > > person who are opposed to LOT=true. I don’t want to put them in the
>> > > > > spotlight for no reason but if you go through the conversation logs of
>> > > > > not only the meeting but the weeks of discussion prior to this meeting
>> > > > > you will see their views evaluated on the ##taproot-activation
>> > > > > channel. In addition, on taprootactivation.com <http://taprootactivation.com>; some mining pools
>> > > > > expressed a preference for lot=false though I don’t know how strong
>> > > > > that preference was.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I am only one voice but it is my current assessment that if we are to
>> > > > > attempt to finalize Taproot activation parameters and propose them to
>> > > > > the community at this time our only option is to propose LOT=false.
>> > > > > Any further delay appears to me counterproductive in our collective
>> > > > > aim to get the Taproot soft fork activated as early as possible.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Obviously others are free to disagree with that assessment and
>> > > > > continue discussions but personally I will be attempting to avoid
>> > > > > those discussions unless prominent new information comes to light or
>> > > > > various specific individuals change their minds.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Next week we are planning a code review of the Bitcoin Core PR #19573
>> > > > > which was initially delayed because of this LOT discussion. As I’ve
>> > > > > said previously that will be loosely following the format of the
>> > > > > Bitcoin Core PR review club and will be lower level and more
>> > > > > technical. That is planned for Tuesday February 23rd at 19:00 UTC on
>> > > > > the IRC channel ##taproot-activation.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thanks to the meeting participants (and those who joined the
>> > > > > discussion on the channel prior and post the meeting) for engaging
>> > > > > productively and in good faith.
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Michael Folkson
>> > > Email: michaelfolkson at gmail.com <mailto:michaelfolkson at gmail.com>
>> > > Keybase: michaelfolkson
>> > > PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> > > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>> > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>;
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael Folkson
>> Email: michaelfolkson at gmail.com <mailto:michaelfolkson at gmail.com>
>> Keybase: michaelfolkson
>> PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>;
>
>
>
> --
> Michael Folkson
> Email: michaelfolkson at gmail.com <mailto:michaelfolkson at gmail.com>
> Keybase: michaelfolkson
> PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3