From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68834C000A for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 23:58:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 463C383EE9 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 23:58:18 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.097 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=1.049, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yF5d5FKl47Ux for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 23:58:17 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:09:04 by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::2]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EA8883EC0 for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 23:58:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ozlabs.org (Postfix, from userid 1011) id 4FFPPf1c1Nz9sV5; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 09:49:10 +1000 (AEST) From: Rusty Russell To: Jeremy , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Bitcoin development mailing list In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2021 13:55:21 +0930 Message-ID: <874kgkkpji.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] March 23rd 2021 Taproot Activation Meeting Notes 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: Tue, 06 Apr 2021 23:58:18 -0000 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 generally. > - There is desire to know if Rusty retracts or reaffirms his NACK in light > of the responses. I do not withdraw my NACK (and kudos: there have been few attempts to pressure me to do so!). The core question always was: what do we do if miners fail to activate? Luke-Jr takes the approach that "we (i.e developers) ensure it activates anyway". I take the approach that "the users must make a direct intervention". Speedy Trial takes the approach that "let's pretend we didn't *actually* ask them". 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 robust. Personally, I think the compromise position is using LOT=false and having those such as Luke and myself continue working on a LOT=true branch for future consideration. It's less than optimal, but I appreciate that people want Taproot activated more than they want the groundwork future upgrades. I hope that helps, Rusty.