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 BC923C000A for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 19:14:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9594A40EA6 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 19:14:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DUWW20Hc9lH5 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 19:14:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-ot1-x329.google.com (mail-ot1-x329.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::329]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA22E40E72 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 19:14:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ot1-x329.google.com with SMTP id g8-20020a9d6c480000b02901b65ca2432cso24097054otq.3 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 12:14:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+OdfsD4CoBDujbavcXfFiUhl3XhXuUuptSBnPelzrfU=; b=rWV+ZsJjZ5kTfKKe63CQyNdM9hqMnlDTqIwSOY2+n4Q+f5GPStOkPw9Ry0WpKs/l1T BOHZkC4MhmzFWFpBw3Dq8xnmZ/EPzhvl1R8m/OYW5Q0QjiF2Nbi/Boj85Awft66L5XrO cjlk9m6qgktRH41t0/qJMdLvZS62TnjvS7JCS7lHWFh5nVvJBlrD1sfzZiVleANLtNtb AgnMXLtQCfh+TDsh/Z34oTJV/f2qvf19yHh2hw6kK2C7xskpQqzDOeVmtapY2kGgxTOn SDhuvsEGZkGCZbCF+WUBb/2n0j86802ylwz7UFJX6NWyPIOKEw36di9uWqfhjwi8JEla wkqw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+OdfsD4CoBDujbavcXfFiUhl3XhXuUuptSBnPelzrfU=; b=A6Z/HqbkT3cAaWG2Q5Wo6UZkwYeWkfZ9U3x1rTuYWoA/kWKqVpyBY6CTem2eWh7OWQ SD1CrArpxJtOAdUFhhn5EelIvuxOlGu+hOWiTJlpJ8TuHKjfUVYHkoAGSU+GU+3xutzi uGL8elGuI9u0o9Djftp/LL6fTKUGV+T/UnLGAwv13ybHEfwexXQGn5RRGqKxBV9Ng1Ln K/bL2yaGcT9X9lTPCamWu1TS3B/Q09JOeTX6UUKKicp7HkHI1KjSvt+dD4ofEBSyG2G2 IlfTsK+utdDrm5A1SuoOo3XgUd4G89C7LqY9ceGyVF6IDo+g2FrzWzdXJ4wExDzeRYnm VrZw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532myjJfRbIJT0ySEAmKFsNM75mecoAGmr87lVCtS4G7t3qbQ6Xz Z54D9SHORwtLTxfL4u74VaJqdBO4vMfqXudc/1A= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyNS0K12sg3QcWjeQdxAJC8ZWgQAMDyMnPZd73Q6ZiLfzqquEBYYxPVcnTw4113ZP3L+RiM6gzpt2Y9l1sKwU8= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:14c1:: with SMTP id t1mr4382799otq.305.1616613263690; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 12:14:23 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Michael Folkson Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 19:14:12 +0000 Message-ID: To: Jeremy Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 21:51:33 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 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: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 19:14:26 -0000 > Your response strikes me as ingenuine with regards to "other projects" as= it is a project I understand you to be one of the parties spearheading. I = think it's misleading to not clarify that in your response. I support Taproot activation and any project that can help bring that about. As I have said many times I am 100 percent against an incompatible UASF release with a Core ST release. However a UASF project is well within its rights to work around finalized ST parameters in Core to prepare for a possible (but unlikely) failed ST deployment, *especially* in the case that Core is unable to. > As you would ACK either full MTP or full height, but nacking "mixed, seem= s to be a fallacy of the excluded middle. I just prefer consistency. If you prefer inconsistency that is your right. Although "I have a preference for fully height based design, correct" is another of your direct quotes from 6 days ago. So NACKing that same approach 6 days later is a touch bizarre. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21377#issuecomment-802396191 > I further find your logic around point 2, 'To prevent a "marketed push to= launch a UASF client."', to more aptly apply to ST with height. "marketed push to launch a UASF client" is a direct quote from your email. What marketing has to do with anything I have no idea. As I said in my original response I would prefer not to make technical decisions based on speculation for the marketing strategy of an alternative project. That leads down a very dark road of merging in PRs in response to "world computers" and "Turing completeness" marketing. Thanks Michael On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 6:10 PM Jeremy wrote: > > Michael, > > Your response strikes me as ingenuine with regards to "other projects" as= it is a project I understand you to be one of the parties spearheading. I = think it's misleading to not clarify that in your response. > > Your NACK on MTP based ST does not have any merit. The only argument you = made for nacking MTP based ST is it is "weird". "Weird" is not a technical = argument, it's a normative statement. > > As you would ACK either full MTP or full height, but nacking "mixed, seem= s to be a fallacy of the excluded middle. > > AJ's note on this where it is technically justified to use MTP w/ min act= ive height https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21377#issuecomment-79242= 5221, as such it is not a weird choice at all. In fact, without further pat= ching, if I understand correctly, you wouldn't want to use pure MTP without= additional logic. > > I further find your logic around point 2, 'To prevent a "marketed push to= launch a UASF client."', to more aptly apply to ST with height. > > > Pushing for height based ST is causing additional review burden on contri= butors in service of enabling a fringe group's side project. That is actual= ly making a technical decision on another project's marketing strategy, and= is precisely why I NACK'd it. > > Even more outrageously, MTP based ST is easily compatible with a height b= ased BIP8 LOT=3Dtrue + minactiveheight client, so there really is not a goo= d reason for the fuss. Note -- in general UASF is not the fringe group here= -- it's the group trying to preempt the release of an ST client with a UAS= F client which is the fringe sentiment. > > For you to flip the exact argument that I made for rejecting ST Height on= to ST MTP is no more than a "I know you are but what am I" argument, which = I do not think holds water. > > Best, > > Jeremy > > > > -- > @JeremyRubin > > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 4:24 AM Michael Folkson wrote: >> >> Thanks for this Jeremy. I agree with the vast majority of this. >> >> For those that missed yesterday's meeting the meeting log is here: >> http://gnusha.org/taproot-activation/2021-03-23.log >> >> Jeremy also livestreamed the meeting on his Twitch channel: >> https://www.twitch.tv/videos/960346848 >> >> On the choice between using block heights consistently or using a >> weird mix of both block heights and MTP in the same activation >> mechanism you can put me down for a NACK for the latter also. >> >> In addition I documented here the preferences for a consistent use of >> block height: >> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21377#issuecomment-802336038 >> >> If it was a direct choice between entirely block height or entirely >> MTP then I probably wouldn't NACK either. But using a mix of both >> makes no sense to me. >> >> The two arguments in favor of using a weird mix of block heights and >> MTP appear to be: >> 1) "additional review required to ensure height based activation" >> 2) To prevent a "marketed push to launch a UASF client." >> >> On 1) I would argue that the additional review required is not >> excessive by any means and we have the time to review a consistent use >> of block height (especially if people spent their time reviewing a PR >> with a consistent use of block height rather than arguing for a mix). >> On 2) if we are making technical decisions based on speculating on the >> marketing strategies of other projects Bitcoin Core is a very >> different project to the project I thought it was. >> >> I personally would find it much easier to reason about timings and >> time intervals of the different activation phases if block heights are >> used consistently across the activation mechanism rather than a weird >> mix of both block heights and MTP. >> >> Other than that, I agree it was an excellent meeting and thanks for >> your efforts organizing and hosting the meeting. >> >> -- >> Michael Folkson >> Email: michaelfolkson@gmail.com >> Keybase: michaelfolkson >> PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3 --=20 Michael Folkson Email: michaelfolkson@gmail.com Keybase: michaelfolkson PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3