From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC9F3C000D for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:26:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 961936059A for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:26:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9HVq7IPcIfDc for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:26:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 2D5BA605FE; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:26:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-oi1-f169.google.com (mail-oi1-f169.google.com [209.85.167.169]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1F416059A for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:26:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi1-f169.google.com with SMTP id w1so2171157oic.0 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 06:26:28 -0800 (PST) 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; bh=rVN8MaI8nRQWkIo9wil75KRT6nynaAxosSNsmmALo34=; b=HtDtJBseWdPDJI4VnbyHcZMkhnNx9nMDbzHUePLmWtbZkcaOmLNnU6HFIazt8mmib+ j2hKJ/PbPMiAeoxMIG1HDED604s0w4ixc5tAl+gKC78aJrKoteaBus5A8EH73oj8gmky VQESF6b0jH37XUfa6B/F1yCTc0ep/mvLCxyY17c1uLx9wolKR9nQGL4Y4aE6vOxB+kSy 4TEDyO7BrzMp2/lewXdva2RiHhaAg70ufkqo9CSH7WRVnePtRuCysF8SXKCj9/18FDD0 PbxblVbFvsuGSD+aZrYQYG5GYR0DXDmpFFlK3rvvpYpok4tco/678Tbjc0krOXY+QsU2 Eubg== 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; bh=rVN8MaI8nRQWkIo9wil75KRT6nynaAxosSNsmmALo34=; b=qmi2Ojq8YKzE8szANXiGSgI4Bvr1JMOOnlINwyIFPvsEyfVJZWICm3n7qiP1ToslF+ 8ZVIZ5aeSVLkqUfem0xesktS4Gsz/5hxvO+iqwiINXK0FEYfl8XK+EQftUCPhbGl8GzI l9NTZn5dwFyN40lXJ/tviAGS+koOdJfVc8mtLnud/BNDIfU4biPJLOgI2MG0ecLot94k G/3s2J3k+UwuybSl5Qt7Dqr/FW9IkncLpmJ0dssyrmhyjYJ8GZa7BbsNIA2jJfpCgFkX h64/bSA7aPiHTCiDmqEfebUhcc2rIRSJBvbk9YrvPVEckWk0ePFX813h1pJ7MQjbUDDa EMzw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5336Gj3U/Q/M+L+EfCdQMvQOfW7fbQHIHGcIDnn9ntYoPUeyQjIz Nq8LDbDiNt/C4YIA6aDhp7g0PkkVaX2wLkfJ/bM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzF1kSnQd9mSnPVM7Sp699uR80fdXE/Qx+cE3FlcCCsBAnIBNsC4gHOQamI7TG3+55a0G9EPH0fmiiOsyHevlw= X-Received: by 2002:aca:2208:: with SMTP id b8mr3029303oic.131.1613658387708; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 06:26:27 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <8591CF93-E574-4C23-90D5-FA410637DECD@mattcorallo.com> In-Reply-To: <8591CF93-E574-4C23-90D5-FA410637DECD@mattcorallo.com> From: Michael Folkson Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:26:16 +0000 Message-ID: To: Matt Corallo Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fcfd4305bb9d1ef0" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 15:48:01 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Yesterday's Taproot activation meeting on lockinontimeout (LOT) 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, 18 Feb 2021 14:26:35 -0000 --000000000000fcfd4305bb9d1ef0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks for your response Matt. It is a fair challenge. There is always going to be an element of risk with soft forks, all we can do is attempt to minimize that risk. I would argue that risk has been minimized for Taproot. You know (better than I do in fact) that Bitcoin (and layers built on top of it) greatly benefit from upgrades such as Taproot. To say we shouldn't do Taproot or any future soft forks because there is a small but real risk of chain splits I think is shortsighted. Indeed I think even if we collectively decided not to do any future soft fork upgrades ever again on this mailing list that wouldn't stop soft fork attempts from other people in future. I don't think there is anything else we can do to minimize that risk for the Taproot soft fork at this point though I'm open to ideas. To reiterate that risk will never be zero. I don't think I see Bitcoin as fragile as you seem to (though admittedly you have a much better understanding than me of what happened in 2017). The likely scenario for the Taproot soft fork is LOT turns out to be entirely irrelevant and miners activate Taproot before it becomes relevant. And even the unlikely worst case scenario would only cause short term disruption and wouldn't kill Bitcoin long term. On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 2:01 PM Matt Corallo wrote: > If the eventual outcome is that different implementations (that have > material *transaction processing* userbases, and I=E2=80=99m not sure to = what > extent that=E2=80=99s true with Knots) ship different consensus rules, we= should > stop here and not activate Taproot. Seriously. > > Bitcoin is a consensus system. The absolute worst outcome at all possible > is to have it fall out of consensus. > > Matt > > On Feb 18, 2021, at 08:11, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > =EF=BB=BF > Right, that is one option. Personally I would prefer a Bitcoin Core > release sets LOT=3Dfalse (based on what I have heard from Bitcoin Core > contributors) and a community effort releases a version with LOT=3Dtrue. = I > don't think users should be forced to choose something they may have no > context on before they are allowed to use Bitcoin Core. > > My current understanding is that roasbeef is planning to set LOT=3Dfalse = on > btcd (an alternative protocol implementation to Bitcoin Core) and Luke > Dashjr hasn't yet decided on Bitcoin Knots. > > > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 11:52 AM ZmnSCPxj wrote= : > >> Good morning all, >> >> > "An activation mechanism is a consensus change like any other change, >> can be contentious like any other change, and we must resolve it like an= y >> other change. Otherwise we risk arriving at the darkest timeline." >> > >> > Who's we here? >> > >> > Release both and let the network decide. >> >> A thing that could be done, without mandating either LOT=3Dtrue or >> LOT=3Dfalse, would be to have a release that requires a `taprootlot=3D1`= or >> `taprootlot=3D0` and refuses to start if the parameter is not set. >> >> This assures everyone that neither choice is being forced on users, and >> instead what is being forced on users, is for users to make that choice >> themselves. >> >> Regards, >> ZmnSCPxj >> >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 3:08 AM Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> > >> > > Thanks for your response Ariel. It would be useful if you responded >> to specific points I have made in the mailing list post or at least quot= e >> these ephemeral "people" you speak of. I don't know if you're responding= to >> conversation on the IRC channel or on social media etc. >> > > >> > > > The argument comes from a naive assumption that users MUST upgrade >> to the choice that is submitted into code. But in fact this isn't true a= nd >> some voices in this discussion need to be more humble about what users m= ust >> or must not run. >> > > >> > > I personally have never made this assumption. Of course users aren't >> forced to run any particular software version, quite the opposite. Defau= lts >> set in software versions matter though as many users won't change them. >> > > >> > > > Does no one realize that it is a very possible outcome that if >> LOT=3Dtrue is released there may be only a handful of people that begin >> running it while everyone else delays their upgrade (with the very good >> reason of not getting involved in politics) and a year later those handf= ul >> of people just become stuck at the moment of MUST_SIGNAL, unable to mine >> new blocks? >> > > >> > > It is a possible outcome but the likely outcome is that miners >> activate Taproot before LOT is even relevant. I think it is prudent to >> prepare for the unlikely but possible outcome that miners fail to activa= te >> and hence have this discussion now rather than be unprepared for that >> eventuality. If LOT is set to false in a software release there is the >> possibility (T2 in >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/01= 8380.html) >> of individuals or a proportion of the community changing LOT to true. In >> that sense setting LOT=3Dfalse in a software release appears to be no mo= re >> safe than LOT=3Dtrue. >> > > >> > > > The result: a wasted year of waiting and a minority of people who >> didn't want to be lenient with miners by default. >> > > >> > > There is the (unlikely but possible) possibility of a wasted year if >> LOT is set to false and miners fail to activate. I'm not convinced by th= is >> perception that LOT=3Dtrue is antagonistic to miners. I actually think i= t >> offers them clarity on what will happen over a year time period and remo= ves >> the need for coordinated or uncoordinated community UASF efforts on top = of >> LOT=3Dfalse. >> > > >> > > > An activation mechanism is a consensus change like any other >> change, can be contentious like any other change, and we must resolve it >> like any other change. Otherwise we risk arriving at the darkest timelin= e. >> > > >> > > I don't know what you are recommending here to avoid "this darkest >> timeline". Open discussions have occurred and are continuing and in my >> mailing list post that you responded to **I recommended we propose >> LOT=3Dfalse be set in protocol implementations such as Bitcoin Core**. I= do >> think this apocalyptic language isn't particularly helpful. In an open >> consensus system discussion is healthy, we should prepare for bad or wor= st >> case scenarios in advance and doing so is not antagonistic or destructiv= e. >> Mining pools have pledged support for Taproot but we don't build secure >> systems based on pledges of support, we build them to minimize trust in = any >> human actors. We can be grateful that people like Alejandro have worked >> hard on taprootactivation.com (and this effort has informed the >> discussion) without taking pledges of support as cast iron guarantees. >> > > >> > > TL;DR It sounds like you agree with my recommendation to set >> LOT=3Dfalse in protocol implementations in my email :) >> > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 5:43 AM Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces < >> arielluaces@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > > Something what strikes me about the conversation is the emotion >> surrounding the letters UASF. >> > > > It appears as if people discuss UASF as if it's a massive tidal >> wave of support that is inevitable, like we saw during segwit activation= . >> But the actual definition is "any activation that is not a MASF". >> > > > A UASF can consist of a single node, ten nodes, a thousand, half o= f >> all nodes, all business' nodes, or even all the non mining nodes. On >> another dimension it can have zero mining support, 51% support, 49% >> support, or any support right up against a miner activation threshold. >> > > > Hell a UASF doesn't even need code or even a single node running a= s >> long as it exists as a possibility in people's minds. >> > > > The only thing a UASF doesn't have is miner support above an agree= d >> activation threshold (some number above %51). >> > > > I say this because it strikes me when people say that they are for >> LOT=3Dtrue with the logic that since a UASF is guaranteed to happen then= it's >> better to just make it default from the beginning. Words like coordinati= on >> and safety are sometimes sprinkled into the argument. >> > > > The argument comes from a naive assumption that users MUST upgrade >> to the choice that is submitted into code. But in fact this isn't true a= nd >> some voices in this discussion need to be more humble about what users m= ust >> or must not run. >> > > > Does no one realize that it is a very possible outcome that if >> LOT=3Dtrue is released there may be only a handful of people that begin >> running it while everyone else delays their upgrade (with the very good >> reason of not getting involved in politics) and a year later those handf= ul >> of people just become stuck at the moment of MUST_SIGNAL, unable to mine >> new blocks? Or attracting a minority of miners, activating, and forking = off >> into a minority fork. Then a lot=3Dfalse could be started that ends up >> activating the feature now that the stubborn option has ran its course. >> > > > The result: a wasted year of waiting and a minority of people who >> didn't want to be lenient with miners by default. The chains could be >> called BitcoinLenient and BitcoinStubborn. >> > > > How is that strictly safer or more coordinated? >> > > > I may be in the minority, or maybe a silent majority, or maybe a >> majority that just hasn't considered this as a choice but honestly if th= ere >> is contention about whether we're going to be stubborn or lenient with >> miners for Taproot and in the future then I prefer to just not activate >> anything at all. I'm fine for calling bitcoin ossified, accepting that >> segwit is Bitcoin's last network upgrade. Taproot is amazing but no new >> feature is worth a network split down the middle. >> > > > Maybe in 10 or 20 years, when other blockchains implement features >> like Taproot and many more, we will become envious enough to put aside o= ur >> differences on how to behave towards miners and finally activate Taproot= . >> > > > An activation mechanism is a consensus change like any other >> change, can be contentious like any other change, and we must resolve it >> like any other change. Otherwise we risk arriving at the darkest timelin= e. >> > > > Cheers >> > > > Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces >> > > > On Feb 17, 2021, at 7:05 AM, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Yesterday (February 16th) we held a second meeting on Taproot >> > > > > activation on IRC which again was open to all. Despite what >> appeared >> > > > > to be majority support for LOT=3Dfalse over LOT=3Dtrue in the fi= rst >> > > > > meeting I (and others) thought the arguments had not been >> explored in >> > > > > depth and that we should have a follow up meeting almost entirel= y >> > > > > focused on whether LOT (lockinontimeout) should be set to true o= r >> > > > > false. >> > > > > >> > > > > The meeting was announced here: >> > > > > >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/01= 8380.html >> > > > > >> > > > > In that mailing list post I outlined the arguments for LOT=3Dtru= e >> (T1 to >> > > > > T6) and arguments for LOT=3Dfalse (F1 to F6) in their strongest >> form I >> > > > > could. David Harding responded with an additional argument for >> > > > > LOT=3Dfalse (F7) here: >> > > > > >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/01= 8415.html >> > > > > >> > > > > These meetings are very challenging given they are open to all, >> you >> > > > > don=E2=80=99t know who will attend and you don=E2=80=99t know mo= st people=E2=80=99s views >> in >> > > > > advance. I tried to give time for both the LOT=3Dtrue arguments = and >> the >> > > > > LOT=3Dfalse arguments to be discussed as I knew there was suppor= t >> for >> > > > > both. We only tried evaluating which had more support and which >> had >> > > > > more strong opposition towards the end of the meeting. >> > > > > >> > > > > The conversation log is here: >> > > > > http://gnusha.org/taproot-activation/2021-02-16.log >> > > > > >> > > > > (If you are so inclined you can watch a video of the meeting her= e. >> > > > > Thanks to the YouTube account =E2=80=9CBitcoin=E2=80=9D for sett= ing up the >> livestream: >> > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dvpl5q1ovMLM) >> > > > > >> > > > > A summary of the meeting was provided by Luke Dashjr on Mastodon >> here: >> > > > > https://bitcoinhackers.org/@lukedashjr/105742918779234566 >> > > > > >> > > > > Today's #Bitcoin #Taproot meeting was IMO largely unproductive, >> but we >> > > > > did manage to come to consensus on everything but LockinOnTimeou= t. >> > > > > >> > > > > Activation height range: 693504-745920 >> > > > > >> > > > > MASF threshold: 1815/2016 blocks (90%) >> > > > > >> > > > > Keep in mind only ~100 people showed for the meetings, hardly >> > > > > representative of the entire community. >> > > > > >> > > > > So, these details remain JUST a proposal for now. >> > > > > >> > > > > It seems inevitable that there won't be consensus on LOT. >> > > > > >> > > > > Everyone will have to choose for himself. :/ >> > > > > >> > > > > Personally I agree with most of this. I agree that there wasn=E2= =80=99t >> > > > > overwhelming consensus for either LOT=3Dtrue or LOT=3Dfalse. How= ever, >> from >> > > > > my perspective there was clearly more strong opposition (what >> would >> > > > > usually be deemed a NACK in Bitcoin Core review terminology) fro= m >> > > > > Bitcoin Core contributors, Lightning developers and other >> community >> > > > > members against LOT=3Dtrue than there was for LOT=3Dfalse. Andre= w Chow >> > > > > tried to summarize views from the meeting in this analysis: >> > > > > https://gist.github.com/achow101/3e179501290abb7049de198d46894c7= c >> > > > > >> > > > > I am also aware of other current and previous Bitcoin Core >> > > > > contributors and Lightning developers who didn=E2=80=99t attend = the >> meeting in >> > > > > person who are opposed to LOT=3Dtrue. I don=E2=80=99t want to pu= t them in >> the >> > > > > spotlight for no reason but if you go through the conversation >> logs of >> > > > > not only the meeting but the weeks of discussion prior to this >> meeting >> > > > > you will see their views evaluated on the ##taproot-activation >> > > > > channel. In addition, on taprootactivation.com some mining pools >> > > > > expressed a preference for lot=3Dfalse though I don=E2=80=99t kn= ow how >> strong >> > > > > that preference was. >> > > > > >> > > > > I am only one voice but it is my current assessment that if we >> are to >> > > > > attempt to finalize Taproot activation parameters and propose >> them to >> > > > > the community at this time our only option is to propose >> LOT=3Dfalse. >> > > > > Any further delay appears to me counterproductive in our >> collective >> > > > > aim to get the Taproot soft fork activated as early as possible. >> > > > > >> > > > > Obviously others are free to disagree with that assessment and >> > > > > continue discussions but personally I will be attempting to avoi= d >> > > > > those discussions unless prominent new information comes to ligh= t >> or >> > > > > various specific individuals change their minds. >> > > > > >> > > > > Next week we are planning a code review of the Bitcoin Core PR >> #19573 >> > > > > which was initially delayed because of this LOT discussion. As >> I=E2=80=99ve >> > > > > said previously that will be loosely following the format of the >> > > > > Bitcoin Core PR review club and will be lower level and more >> > > > > technical. That is planned for Tuesday February 23rd at 19:00 UT= C >> on >> > > > > the IRC channel ##taproot-activation. >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks to the meeting participants (and those who joined the >> > > > > discussion on the channel prior and post the meeting) for engagi= ng >> > > > > productively and in good faith. >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Michael Folkson >> > > Email: michaelfolkson@gmail.com >> > > Keybase: michaelfolkson >> > > PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3 >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > bitcoin-dev mailing list >> > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >> >> > > -- > Michael Folkson > Email: michaelfolkson@gmail.com > Keybase: michaelfolkson > PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3 > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --=20 Michael Folkson Email: michaelfolkson@gmail.com Keybase: michaelfolkson PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3 --000000000000fcfd4305bb9d1ef0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks for your response Matt. It is a fair challenge. The= re is always going to be an element of risk with soft forks, all we can do = is attempt to minimize that risk. I would argue that risk has been minimize= d for Taproot.

You know (better than I do in fact) that = Bitcoin (and layers built on top of it) greatly benefit from upgrades such = as Taproot. To say we shouldn't do Taproot or any future soft forks bec= ause there is a small but real risk of chain splits I think is shortsighted= . Indeed I think even if we collectively=C2=A0decided not to do any future = soft fork upgrades ever again on this mailing list that wouldn't stop s= oft fork attempts from other people in future.=C2=A0

I don't think there is anything else we can do to minimize that risk= for the Taproot soft fork at this point though I'm open to ideas. To r= eiterate that risk will never be zero. I don't think I see Bitcoin as f= ragile as you seem to (though admittedly you have a much better understandi= ng than me of what happened in 2017).

The likely s= cenario for the Taproot soft fork is LOT turns out to be entirely irrelevan= t and miners activate Taproot before it becomes relevant. And even the unli= kely worst case scenario would only cause short term disruption and wouldn&= #39;t kill Bitcoin long term.

On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 2:01 PM Matt Cor= allo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.c= om> wrote:
If the eventual outcome is that differ= ent implementations (that have material *transaction processing* userbases,= and I=E2=80=99m not sure to what extent that=E2=80=99s true with Knots) sh= ip different consensus rules, we should stop here and not activate Taproot.= Seriously.

Bitcoin is a c= onsensus system. The absolute worst outcome at all possible is to have it f= all out of consensus.

Matt=

On Feb 18, 2021, at 08= :11, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.= org> wrote:

=EF=BB=BF
Right, that is one option. Personall= y I would prefer a Bitcoin Core release sets LOT=3Dfalse (based on what I h= ave heard from Bitcoin Core contributors) and a community effort releases a= version with LOT=3Dtrue. I don't think users should be forced to choos= e something they may have no context on before they are allowed to use Bitc= oin Core.=C2=A0

My current understanding is that roasbee= f is planning to set LOT=3Dfalse on btcd (an alternative protocol implement= ation to Bitcoin Core) and Luke Dashjr hasn't yet decided on Bitcoin Kn= ots.



On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at = 11:52 AM ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> wrote:
Good morning all,

> "An activation mechanism is a consensus change like any other cha= nge, can be contentious like any other change, and we must resolve it like = any other change. Otherwise we risk arriving at the darkest timeline."=
>
> Who's we here?
>
> Release both and let the network decide.

A thing that could be done, without mandating either LOT=3Dtrue or LOT=3Dfa= lse, would be to have a release that requires a `taprootlot=3D1` or `taproo= tlot=3D0` and refuses to start if the parameter is not set.

This assures everyone that neither choice is being forced on users, and ins= tead what is being forced on users, is for users to make that choice themse= lves.

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj

>
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 3:08 AM Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev <bi= tcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for your response Ariel. It would be useful if you respond= ed to specific points I have made in the mailing list post or at least quot= e these ephemeral "people" you speak of. I don't know if you&= #39;re responding to conversation on the IRC channel or on social media etc= .
> >
> > > The argument comes from a naive assumption that users MUST u= pgrade to the choice that is submitted into code. But in fact this isn'= t true and some voices in this discussion need to be more humble about what= users must or must not run.
> >
> > I personally have never made this assumption. Of course users are= n't forced to run any particular software version, quite the opposite. = Defaults set in software versions matter though as many users won't cha= nge them.
> >
> > > Does no one realize that it is a very possible outcome that = if LOT=3Dtrue is released there may be only a handful of people that begin = running it while everyone else delays their upgrade (with the very good rea= son of not getting involved in politics) and a year later those handful of = people just become stuck at the moment of MUST_SIGNAL, unable to mine new b= locks?
> >
> > It is a possible outcome but the likely outcome is that miners ac= tivate Taproot before LOT is even relevant. I think it is prudent to prepar= e for the unlikely but possible outcome that miners fail to activate and he= nce have this discussion now rather than be unprepared for that eventuality= . If LOT is set to false in a software release there is the possibility (T2= in=C2=A0https://li= sts.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018380.html= ) of individuals or a proportion of the community changing LOT to true. In = that sense setting LOT=3Dfalse in a software release appears to be no more = safe than LOT=3Dtrue.
> >
> > > The result: a wasted year of waiting and a minority of peopl= e who didn't want to be lenient with miners by default.
> >
> > There is the (unlikely but possible) possibility of a wasted year= if LOT is set to false and miners fail to activate. I'm not convinced = by this perception that LOT=3Dtrue is antagonistic to miners. I actually th= ink it offers them clarity on what will happen over a year time period and = removes the need for coordinated or uncoordinated community UASF efforts on= top of LOT=3Dfalse.
> >
> > > An activation mechanism is a consensus change like any other= change, can be contentious like any other change, and we must resolve it l= ike any other change. Otherwise we risk arriving at the darkest timeline. > >
> > I don't know what you are recommending here to avoid "th= is darkest timeline". Open discussions have occurred and are continuin= g and in my mailing list post that you responded to **I recommended we prop= ose LOT=3Dfalse be set in protocol implementations such as Bitcoin Core**. = I do think this apocalyptic language isn't particularly helpful. In an = open consensus system discussion is healthy, we should prepare for bad or w= orst case scenarios in advance and doing so is not antagonistic or destruct= ive. Mining pools=C2=A0have pledged support for Taproot but we don't bu= ild secure systems based on pledges of support, we build them to minimize t= rust in any human actors. We can be grateful that people like Alejandro hav= e worked hard on taprootactivation.com (and this effort has informed= the discussion) without taking pledges of support as cast iron guarantees.=
> >
> > TL;DR It sounds like you agree with my recommendation to set LOT= =3Dfalse in protocol implementations in my email :)
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 5:43 AM Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Something what strikes me about the conversation is the emot= ion surrounding the letters UASF.
> > > It appears as if people discuss UASF as if it's a massiv= e tidal wave of support that is inevitable, like we saw during segwit activ= ation. But the actual definition is "any activation that is not a MASF= ".
> > > A UASF can consist of a single node, ten nodes, a thousand, = half of all nodes, all business' nodes, or even all the non mining node= s. On another dimension it can have zero mining support, 51% support, 49% s= upport, or any support right up against a miner activation threshold.
> > > Hell a UASF doesn't even need code or even a single node= running as long as it exists as a possibility in people's minds.
> > > The only thing a UASF doesn't have is miner support abov= e an agreed activation threshold (some number above %51).
> > > I say this because it strikes me when people say that they a= re for LOT=3Dtrue with the logic that since a UASF is guaranteed to happen = then it's better to just make it default from the beginning. Words like= coordination and safety are sometimes sprinkled into the argument.
> > > The argument comes from a naive assumption that users MUST u= pgrade to the choice that is submitted into code. But in fact this isn'= t true and some voices in this discussion need to be more humble about what= users must or must not run.
> > > Does no one realize that it is a very possible outcome that = if LOT=3Dtrue is released there may be only a handful of people that begin = running it while everyone else delays their upgrade (with the very good rea= son of not getting involved in politics) and a year later those handful of = people just become stuck at the moment of MUST_SIGNAL, unable to mine new b= locks? Or attracting a minority of miners, activating, and forking off into= a minority fork. Then a lot=3Dfalse could be started that ends up activati= ng the feature now that the stubborn option has ran its course.
> > > The result: a wasted year of waiting and a minority of peopl= e who didn't want to be lenient with miners by default. The chains coul= d be called BitcoinLenient and BitcoinStubborn.
> > > How is that strictly safer or more coordinated?
> > > I may be in the minority, or maybe a silent majority, or may= be a majority that just hasn't considered this as a choice but honestly= if there is contention about whether we're going to be stubborn or len= ient with miners for Taproot and in the future then I prefer to just not ac= tivate anything at all. I'm fine for calling bitcoin ossified, acceptin= g that segwit is Bitcoin's last network upgrade. Taproot is amazing but= no new feature is worth a network split down the middle.
> > > Maybe in 10 or 20 years, when other blockchains implement fe= atures like Taproot and many more, we will become envious enough to put asi= de our differences on how to behave towards miners and finally activate Tap= root.
> > > An activation mechanism is a consensus change like any other= change, can be contentious like any other change, and we must resolve it l= ike any other change. Otherwise we risk arriving at the darkest timeline. > > > Cheers
> > > Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces
> > > On Feb 17, 2021, at 7:05 AM, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev= <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yesterday (February 16th) we held a second meeting on T= aproot
> > > > activation on IRC which again was open to all. Despite = what appeared
> > > > to be majority support for LOT=3Dfalse over LOT=3Dtrue = in the first
> > > > meeting I (and others) thought the arguments had not be= en explored in
> > > > depth and that we should have a follow up meeting almos= t entirely
> > > > focused on whether LOT (lockinontimeout) should be set = to true or
> > > > false.
> > > >
> > > > The meeting was announced here:
> > > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/0183= 80.html
> > > >
> > > > In that mailing list post I outlined the arguments for = LOT=3Dtrue (T1 to
> > > > T6) and arguments for LOT=3Dfalse (F1 to F6) in their s= trongest form I
> > > > could. David Harding responded with an additional argum= ent for
> > > > LOT=3Dfalse (F7) here:
> > > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/0184= 15.html
> > > >
> > > > These meetings are very challenging given they are open= to all, you
> > > > don=E2=80=99t know who will attend and you don=E2=80=99= t know most people=E2=80=99s views in
> > > > advance. I tried to give time for both the LOT=3Dtrue a= rguments and the
> > > > LOT=3Dfalse arguments to be discussed as I knew there w= as support for
> > > > both. We only tried evaluating which had more support a= nd which had
> > > > more strong opposition towards the end of the meeting.<= br> > > > >
> > > > The conversation log is here:
> > > > http://gnusha.org/taproot-act= ivation/2021-02-16.log
> > > >
> > > > (If you are so inclined you can watch a video of the me= eting here.
> > > > Thanks to the YouTube account =E2=80=9CBitcoin=E2=80=9D= for setting up the livestream:
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dv= pl5q1ovMLM)
> > > >
> > > > A summary of the meeting was provided by Luke Dashjr on= Mastodon here:
> > > > https://bitcoinhackers.= org/@lukedashjr/105742918779234566
> > > >
> > > > Today's #Bitcoin #Taproot meeting was IMO largely u= nproductive, but we
> > > > did manage to come to consensus on everything but Locki= nOnTimeout.
> > > >
> > > > Activation height range: 693504-745920
> > > >
> > > > MASF threshold: 1815/2016 blocks (90%)
> > > >
> > > > Keep in mind only ~100 people showed for the meetings, = hardly
> > > > representative of the entire community.
> > > >
> > > > So, these details remain JUST a proposal for now.
> > > >
> > > > It seems inevitable that there won't be consensus o= n LOT.
> > > >
> > > > Everyone will have to choose for himself. :/
> > > >
> > > > Personally I agree with most of this. I agree that ther= e wasn=E2=80=99t
> > > > overwhelming consensus for either LOT=3Dtrue or LOT=3Df= alse. However, from
> > > > my perspective there was clearly more strong opposition= (what would
> > > > usually be deemed a NACK in Bitcoin Core review termino= logy) from
> > > > Bitcoin Core contributors, Lightning developers and oth= er community
> > > > members against LOT=3Dtrue than there was for LOT=3Dfal= se. Andrew Chow
> > > > tried to summarize views from the meeting in this analy= sis:
> > > > https://gist.gi= thub.com/achow101/3e179501290abb7049de198d46894c7c
> > > >
> > > > I am also aware of other current and previous Bitcoin C= ore
> > > > contributors and Lightning developers who didn=E2=80=99= t attend the meeting in
> > > > person who are opposed to LOT=3Dtrue. I don=E2=80=99t w= ant to put them in the
> > > > spotlight for no reason but if you go through the conve= rsation logs of
> > > > not only the meeting but the weeks of discussion prior = to this meeting
> > > > you will see their views evaluated on the ##taproot-act= ivation
> > > > channel. In addition, on taprootactivation.com s= ome mining pools
> > > > expressed a preference for lot=3Dfalse though I don=E2= =80=99t know how strong
> > > > that preference was.
> > > >
> > > > I am only one voice but it is my current assessment tha= t if we are to
> > > > attempt to finalize Taproot activation parameters and p= ropose them to
> > > > the community at this time our only option is to propos= e LOT=3Dfalse.
> > > > Any further delay appears to me counterproductive in ou= r collective
> > > > aim to get the Taproot soft fork activated as early as = possible.
> > > >
> > > > Obviously others are free to disagree with that assessm= ent and
> > > > continue discussions but personally I will be attemptin= g to avoid
> > > > those discussions unless prominent new information come= s to light or
> > > > various specific individuals change their minds.
> > > >
> > > > Next week we are planning a code review of the Bitcoin = Core PR #19573
> > > > which was initially delayed because of this LOT discuss= ion. As I=E2=80=99ve
> > > > said previously that will be loosely following the form= at of the
> > > > Bitcoin Core PR review club and will be lower level and= more
> > > > technical. That is planned for Tuesday February 23rd at= 19:00 UTC on
> > > > the IRC channel ##taproot-activation.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks to the meeting participants (and those who joine= d the
> > > > discussion on the channel prior and post the meeting) f= or engaging
> > > > productively and in good faith.
> >
> > --
> > Michael Folkson
> > Email:=C2=A0michaelfolkson@gmail.com
> > Keybase: michaelfolkson
> > PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundatio= n.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev




--
Michael Folkson
Keybase: michaelfolkson
PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835= 92D6 0159 214C FEE3
=
_______________________________________________
bitco= in-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--
Michael Folkson
Keybase: michaelfolkson
PGP: 43ED C999 9F85= 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3
--000000000000fcfd4305bb9d1ef0--