In response to the previous Taproot Activation Meeting, I noted that the advance notice was insufficient and proposed having the proposed meeting the following week, to consider the meeting last week as a "discussion", and thereafter reserving a meeting slot fortnightly reserved. I've been asked/volunteered in the ##taproot-activation IRC channel on freenode to announce, assemble an agenda, and host this meeting. *If you plan to attend please read the entire email as there are some specific instructions for participation that have differed from past meetings.* I've attached an ICS file with scheduling this meeting for 10 repetitions for your convenience. Subsequent meetings will hopefully be unnecessary, but scheduling them in advance helps ensure a process that respects all parties desire to participate. The purpose of this meeting is to serve as a checkpoint to raise any blocking issues and to attempt to finalize parameter selection. As such, I've attempted to make a guided agenda that should move towards finalization rather than continuation of debate and makes the best use of everyone's time. If there are topics missing or if I didn't accurately capture the zeitgeist of discussion, please chime in with suggested changes to the agenda. If you cannot attend the meeting you may per-register a comment by replying to this email. You may also pre-register a comment here for any reason for ease of reference during the meeting, but it is not required. So that we can keep the meeting focused and adjust agenda accordingly, I'll also request explicitly that certain categories of comment described below be pre-registered. Please keep this thread limited to pre-registered comments rather than responses to such comments, which will be addressed in the meeting. For the meeting this coming Tuesday the plan is to attempt to finalize on: 1. Resolving any outstanding concerns around using a Speedy Trial to attempt to activate Taproot that must be addressed. There seems to be diverse consensus on ST, as per https://gist.github.com/michaelfolkson/92899f27f1ab30aa2ebee82314f8fe7f#gistcomment-3668460 . *As such, please pre-register any concern about any ST variant at all by responding below.* 2. Selecting between start/stop heights and times for a speedy trial. See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21377 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21392. The focus of this discussion should be focused on blocking reasons to not use time based parameters, the code review process, and timelines for being able to utilize either activation method. It is already a widely acknowledged preference for heights over times from a blank slate pure technical point of view, this discussion is intended to be more pragmatic about safety, hitting the timelines we want to, and shipping code. *As such, If you wish to advocate for MTP from a blank slate pure technical point of view, please pre-register a comment below so we can adjust the agenda ahead of time. * 3. Parameter Selection for start/stop/active points. Short of resolving height or time based start/stop, a discussion of selecting acceptable parameters. We should get agreement on both sets of height or time parameters irrespective of the resolution to 2, so that this conversation can proceed independently. My personal pre-meeting suggestion to keep the discussion moving is that we primarily discuss based on time (as it is the independent variable), and simply use the next (not previous) starting signalling period based on a projection of 10 minute average blocks from today's date to determine the specific height parameters. *Please pre-register if you have a different suggestion.* 4. Parameter flexibility. If we select parameters but, for some reason, need to adjust by a week or two, does this invalidate all ACKs on parameter selection? Or can we agree upon some slack in the timeline to accommodate unforeseen development issues. 5. Simultaneous UASF. There still seems to be some activity on the front of a simultaneous to ST UASF. As this has the potential to derail the meeting if there should be UASF at all (which I think is orthogonal to the goals of this meeting), and given many participants unfamiliarity with the proposal for a UASF, *I ask that any issues you wish to raise in this section of the meeting or pertaining to UASF in a prior section be made in a detailed pre-registered comment. * I think it is regrettable to place this onus on the UASF organizers, but strong communication to the community about plans and intentions seem to be essential and in line with what would be required for a UASF to be safe and successful in any case. I also recognize that some participants (on either side) may not wish to discuss UASF at all in this meeting, but I think that it is an important part of the activation discussion irrespective of personal views. As a reminder, the channel is also open for ongoing discussion 24/7, and there is a web chat client here: https://webchat.freenode.net/?channel=##taproot-activation Best, Jeremy -- @JeremyRubin