From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9C75C000A for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 11:40:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 988CB400DE for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 11:40:55 +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: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iDqO7dPox7SM for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 11:40:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-oo1-xc33.google.com (mail-oo1-xc33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c33]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC81F400A7 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 11:40:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oo1-xc33.google.com with SMTP id j10-20020a4ad18a0000b02901b677a0ba98so435232oor.1 for ; Thu, 08 Apr 2021 04:40:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=V5pAcoD2Z9WQvjuu0QkdcWq1RuPnUqpqNg/IswY30kY=; b=Z8mWyzSRg3vB0eSRGAPYyPcWzpGvkJRymCTT5JJlyjZx3E9S1qjVa0tm9nNXEX5DG7 SYPVWq08v9LezAqexYEgfPiodp+xAQKDDr3jzKHJTF0iEIoNU23nE1V6ZvBfRNB/b0dh OG4jMeOzp/C2weOFv3ngRRtcmGZWmCcyTraRx350Skjg+/shpryzwoxkp5njtegUzbTp wi95Zu+8jdVHyL0tg8qj2KZMKkJG7PXuH2npbBeKW8weCf0sbgvCCcnSOkdON0yjjcfy 2XYo2Dch/JA7NYR1UvyBQ37HkmaMcsOHqYkxneC4QO5CpXJv8o4HQUmKOFncptJ0O0lc FKYA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=V5pAcoD2Z9WQvjuu0QkdcWq1RuPnUqpqNg/IswY30kY=; b=cesoK0+z9q8jzpCdQy7G3DOJywNV949JA4ANEDmKfhh3rmUxMoP3kIMib+vOcf01Fa e6iHGWNP4dr9dmecqgixLBXoSQxk0un4FaT7nvQhGp2YOVHCnOvhEQHDWEXAtrNmiFXU AEjgk0wL616x6sWaPIL2E8xJKW/F7pvDEiKBP9ndp1UWydjNlbQBZ0OMHl7o8ub9R++K DE3xFBtrTXtJk3WYD/GS/Zsln3sN8JRYDemEZXn48Kkezt2ddVGblzzT1SnaSojcA6ix DKrfwjhhAHJXpq6uH/4LOTpOQI1SoBIfIIYxP3rIyxOsat6Wk0j+LXbqNaLTNt87ItBt jqnA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533ITLIOeWZgsKO+SdyBdwZtHnp5tsoe+4vmcAuXUE9rbk6HGSdW 4qOYCIZLz3JZ+KeRcaWHKzkgcz8GJEGfepSP8jwHXkG789k= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJykBY5xpn0L5QwiknMRf/0zzZyN9dpS8FPdz8KG5pJ2PV/TmBE278IbWil6hQjkcBzNRKWtPA/tqUy6CGCIdSs= X-Received: by 2002:a4a:b305:: with SMTP id m5mr7140791ooo.76.1617882053448; Thu, 08 Apr 2021 04:40:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Michael Folkson Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2021 12:40:42 +0100 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 13:44:46 +0000 Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Update on "Speedy" Trial: The circus rolls on 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: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 11:40:55 -0000 I will continue to update the list on the latest developments as I see them. That's all I can do. So the latest circus act is apparently a technical decision made by a coin toss. The rationale being that this discussion on using block height vs a mix of block height and MTP was bikeshedding all along. Here's a short abridged timeline on the views on block height vs MTP of the organizer (Jeremy Rubin) of that coin toss: March 8th: "I have a preference for fully height based design, correct." https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21377#issuecomment-802396= 191 March 24th: "There are two NACKs, one (luke-jr) against MTP, one (jeremyrubin) against height.=E2=80=9D https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-March/018715.h= tml April 6th: "The following folks in the meeting agreed to abide by the flip.... jeremyrubin" https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-April/018742.h= tml April 7th: "So @achow101 is correct that it is not the coin flip which made the decision." https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21393#issuecomment-815388126 Please note on March 24th the only person NACKing block height in that meeting was Jeremy Rubin. He has gone from preferring block height, to NACKing block height, to thinking this discussion all along was bikeshedding and worthy of a coin flip to admitting the coin flip was theater. All of this makes me extremely uncomfortable and I dread to think what individuals and businesses all over the world who have plans to utilize and build on Taproot are making of all of this. As an individual I would like to distance myself from this circus. I will try to keep the mailing list informed though of further developments re Speedy Trial in Core or progress on an alternative client. There are two StackExchange answers here on block height vs MTP, one by David Harding and one by myself for those that are interested in the technical considerations. https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/103854/should-block-height-or-m= tp-or-a-mixture-of-both-be-used-in-a-soft-fork-activatio --=20 Michael Folkson Email: michaelfolkson@gmail.com Keybase: michaelfolkson PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3