From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08F34C0001 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 14:07:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF4B0430EB for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 14:06:59 +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 WAXaM8aEc2DU for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 14:06:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-ot1-x331.google.com (mail-ot1-x331.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::331]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0EC7042C2D for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 14:06:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ot1-x331.google.com with SMTP id y19-20020a0568301d93b02901b9f88a238eso5170204oti.11 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 07:06:58 -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:cc; bh=OQigjoppuXOMdUR+CoNDOvJL5VrSytuyV2SQBf+7JwA=; b=KN+8e7pxUxk48Brvo1i+FWg549bAG4Pp9fGde1jE8Ah7x6nImsgMAvllZ3/EtT+lUD 79f9CtZWN7x/rqNNJ7/QM+5xTxFFwusiyOBT9ueudmde/2tyTkM3wZk92rvbZsNEU302 fEylu11c4czqd729JiHInjHOsEbfGX0UCT6lVSCh6VqH4ThJjaR5hsPX2VrrY82abguN 6JJX2Qg3wyVJQib1dXiPscgud0t2kiMqqwJ1NrEjRuSb1tXt1dhsqE/+bXwi5ZCbLXbj DtfX6uD4otHJxtL9diS4jOYh8CucKOb5gD+1XcB7cUpiI3pBhKO3Q8IOp8/5WmNNxkDp zoxQ== 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:cc; bh=OQigjoppuXOMdUR+CoNDOvJL5VrSytuyV2SQBf+7JwA=; b=tQda1EotoU2vE0dH3Oal+YOAhAYdAmABNcEaDbqX+hDmJCGhm8kdlh5aW+1w5yxC7f y+x8qtW93oTCvESAprJRWL5+Frur6XagC4oZuD3kA2qiInQBLfkCGo5KBfyqr2gpp57B 2JzOTDOigIVyArirJHUVF4DsLZWrYEhigXcVM35coTZ85h60zfIQ6xM1Gugg0+gfXGBQ +ikJxP3jyF35A2Y7m2bxLiHFptsEjgx07k0brA8upYOjCJawe+/xLKr37oETciZtB/TJ 3WFhjjOwTzvdJ8k0tFh+2TTCNfagDfmjOhSvel7KviEEoTYcGxQjk2OHSJsKwfic9Oi+ vkWg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533ReQ7CD78GZusU21vw1cPbBY0A5fgNd3/CzjvZYn4ZcR74fUs0 1eQoTGFnAP1f2NGaaPbObPrRKh195oSkZc2b2ZU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwQzmqxPAPD2Msjzcx9IFAKBR8b84PZJvvGS6W+IlZ2NIExLt6Q6sEkZf8+BlovtjZFOqRqtVSS4yFN3Ncai0Y= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:2118:: with SMTP id i24mr14428697otc.290.1615817216715; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 07:06:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Michael Folkson Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 14:06:45 +0000 Message-ID: To: achow101-lists@achow101.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 12:17:23 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot activation proposal "Speedy Trial" 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: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 14:07:00 -0000 > I don't think we should have a followup deployment start so close to to timeout of ST. I think it would be better to schedule the followup around ST, especially since the details around that are fuzzier and dependent on the results of ST itself. Until Core pull request(s) are merged I don't think we can finalize startheight (and hence the timeout) for Speedy Trial either. Speedy Trial seems to have the most community consensus of any activation proposal thus far and I'm confident it will at some point in the near future it will be merged into Core. Community feedback: https://gist.github.com/michaelfolkson/92899f27f1ab30aa2ebee82314f8fe7f Therefore I think the onus is on any UASF release to fit around a Speedy Trial deployment in Core. I haven't thought enough about what my preference would be assuming activation fails with Speedy Trial re a follow up deployment in Core and/or a UASF release. However, I would be 100 percent opposed to any UASF release that conflicts or is not compatible with a Speedy Trial deployment in Core. On 3/14/21 10:51 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote: > The last period before timeoutheight here overlaps with the current BIP8(True) > deployment plan. So if this period specifically were to reach 90% signalling, > nodes would activate Taproot at height 697536, but ST-only nodes would still > wait until 709632 instead. > > Probably the best solution is to just move this ST window 1 period earlier? > > Luke -- Michael Folkson Email: michaelfolkson@gmail.com Keybase: michaelfolkson PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3