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 B112CC0001 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 22:16:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with UTF8SMTP id 9BC054BF7C for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 22:16:25 +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 uSaWYNqCXsg9 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 22:16:24 +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 77D144B926 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 22:16:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.as397444.net (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPSA id B89EA4C657F; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 22:14:10 +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=1614807664; t=1614809650; bh=m7+VjHAbo/2O9GOCDO+lml1zUl1pe1VOYz2TJSGw3uE=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=o8VacJchgo4Vk56lyhGjuJOPTYXQ8fWKkXjzWGMMqgUTZMs14lk1DfCJWlaJqa15e 3tmpCcyNU2hc6Sb9XAQbQQeZBTIyhMmQG9GWKU7YnSAuKjTHrV/44p0W1DB/d/hmjZ Dqap+nf+gMCiJPqmn5WwDV6vwDYRX8d9jmjnQGM1+wFdEtwXvm5dD7yTzqV5GCvDrf RVbY6sJAUA9ox1DdkXRN/3LUgIZ61onIHhB9mWmnyX0pwiwbUQ8MJl+syRpPJb8NBE nmuDkkKz5M4PF6leKkR19hAqA9uCuPRTMqI/xTP1swujlZU5yWyCXB77u0dCsrDhrd CxqCvN3LWhEPw== Message-ID: <4947b02e-90fb-9044-4552-767de805ff14@mattcorallo.com> Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2021 17:14:10 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Russell O'Connor , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion References: <3286a7eb-9deb-77d6-4527-58e0c5882ae2@riseup.net> From: Matt Corallo In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making the case for flag day activation of taproot 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 22:16:25 -0000 On 3/3/21 14:08, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev wrote: > While I support essentially any proposed taproot activation method, including a flag day activation, I think it is > premature to call BIP8 dead. > > Even today, I still think that starting with BIP8 LOT=false is, generally speaking, considered a reasonably safe > activation method in the sense that I think it will be widely considered as a "not wholly unacceptable" approach to > activation. How do you propose avoiding divergent consensus rules on the network, something which a number of commentors on this list have publicly committed to? > After a normal and successful Core update with LOT=false, we will have more data showing broad community support for the > taproot upgrade in hand. I think this is one of the strongest arguments against a flag day activation, but, as I described in more detail in the thread "Straight Flag Day (Height) Taproot Activation", I'm not sure we aren't there enough already. > In the next release, 6 months later or so, Core could then confidently deploy a BIP8 LOT=true Could you clarify what an acceptable timeline is, then? Six months from release of new consensus rules to activation (in the case of a one-year original window) seems incredibly agressive for a flag-day activation, let alone one with forced-signaling, which would require significantly higher level of adoption to avoid network split risk. In such a world, we'd probably get Taproot faster with a flag day from day one. > client, should it prove to be necessary.  A second Core deployment of LOT=true would mitigate some of the concerns with > LOT=false, but still provide a period beforehand to objective actions taken by the community in support of taproot.  We > don't even have to have agreement today on a second deployment of LOT=true after 6 months to start the process of a > LOT=false deployment. The later deployment will almost certainly be moot, and we will have 6 months to spend debating > the LOT=true deployment versus doing a flag day activation or something else. That was precisely the original goal with the LOT=false movement - do something easy and avoid having to hash out all the technical details of a second deployment. Sadly, that's no longer tennable as a number of people are publicly committed to deploying LOT=true software on the network ASAP. Matt