From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5B64C0001 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 16:50:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with UTF8SMTP id CF92446F1F for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 16:50:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mattcorallo.com Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with UTF8SMTP id 1yS7EdulwCzU for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 16:50:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail.as397444.net (mail.as397444.net [69.59.18.99]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPS id 720ED46EFC for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 16:50:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.as397444.net (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPSA id 1B0514C5D7E; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 16:49:58 +0000 (UTC) X-DKIM-Note: Keys used to sign are likely public at https://as397444.net/dkim/ DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mattcorallo.com; s=1614788463; t=1614790198; bh=w1jUx3xhRGq8nRjz7PiR1xNWnSr0N0UAAJ9jj6ztz9E=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=lVYyBoKsBPOkyFWaDHqSkuv9ptoKpOVopb/7D37XxqqrR87fS/FaJJOY2ZIIsQcom cnphldT1JVKgIvRMLGT3D55SEggBDnmAn1Z2jZQhCgPF8UusCt9IRuG5iPLnQvuvtR gF2kn2MmXiDE7CcUsc75Sx/l/kMYP5ew6+/EAR3gkFMXdZfaSzT6vPHFxLc5an8NWX RuodBDC7B7ZxEXmo4ojWSCxmu5v/wSQ07UvEfbN3+/sHPTQdIdQbkNZb8tZNqYyCoH BfllIjE6dGc2LtmvJtPzhhYYcupSDYgS5lIBB2WKm+CHSLb792HQ2dZqIgC6nQYse+ 0wHNVaNxBrKbQ== Message-ID: <281679eb-860b-c6cb-7e7a-5ae28b60f149@mattcorallo.com> Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2021 11:49:57 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Anthony Towns , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion References: <20210303145902.cl4mzg6l7avjboil@erisian.com.au> From: Matt Corallo In-Reply-To: <20210303145902.cl4mzg6l7avjboil@erisian.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Straight Flag Day (Height) Taproot Activation X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2021 16:50:02 -0000 On 3/3/21 09:59, Anthony Towns wrote: > I think it would be worthwhile to also update getblocktemplate so that > miners signal uptake for something like three or four retarget periods > prior to activation, without that signalling having any consensus-level > effect. That should allow miners and businesses to adjust their > expectations for how much hashpower might not be enforcing taproot rules > when generating blocks -- potentially allowing miners to switch pools > to one running an up to date node, pools to reduce the amount of time > they spend mining on top of unvalidated headers, businesses to increase > confirmation requirements or prepare for the possibility of an increase > in invalid-block entries in their logs, etc. I strongly agree. Ideally such signaling could be placed in the witness nonce, however this may require pool updates to ensure pool server software is not assuming the 32-byte-0-nonce in wide use today. It is a worthwhile change in any case, as it avoids the need to change pool software for future forks which place commitments in the nonce. >> 2) The high node-level-adoption bar is one of the most critical goals, and >> the one most currently in jeopardy in a BIP 8 approach. > > A couple of days ago I would have disagreed with this; but with Luke > now strongly pushing against implementing lot=false, I can at least see > your point... Right. It may be the case that the minority group threatening to fork off onto a lot=true chain is not large enough to give a second thought to. However, I'm not certain that its worth the risk, and, as Chris noted in his post this morning, that approach is likely to include more drama. Matt