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 CCFABC013A for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 12:51:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE4856F4BC for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 12:51:56 +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 a1V62ckxwfvL for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 12:51:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 62C3D6F4D0; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 12:51:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-ot1-f45.google.com (mail-ot1-f45.google.com [209.85.210.45]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DB4E6F4BC for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 12:51:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ot1-f45.google.com with SMTP id s107so11876378otb.8 for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 04:51:53 -0800 (PST) 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=ViiBRRXTwwpi+/Wzjj0qumPGWzdXw8e6zQZOtAYPbHg=; b=qDy4s3ky4K8B8SzptBjUCu4IWijREEtjX70gSubCVd/dIV0FdxGJkDHyqiVW+1X3om /2446QyjmX1v5d/aKQeLjgzggxYxONJBjozq2TTmzWpTQ8Dp3PgtCZM9bHOjadxrNY35 4+9iUbJiQj+MEMvEYjeys66+M/YT6AZoH43o5PkXql9t3b8ngfLBRIivu3pthXHFbN8Y i6MtNSMnPaGPwz4fJd4XnpWSwk7qkQNRC0iv3/DFTKE71IwYD/jwQKuL78fkCfgOooLG 0aDOOd9NwwsZRMZzYRmTH1kizLG4M06ZPZnKRHmhTSENG3mb47jE+NcCdB/YXrrOxAYe hNCQ== 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=ViiBRRXTwwpi+/Wzjj0qumPGWzdXw8e6zQZOtAYPbHg=; b=dn7sW5FjvDebg44rIZGmpOv9+o8bdkclSuUq98hdCUfb7st84IP3caYKMdoiSibXnl ab+9riRKLDtdW2y2VYvocOnZxTZnfP0eyT92lQ1SG7DuZ4HtSKWQlAvEIUNrK9J4fxAK 2gXuN6Hx5LjaRhN6Sf6uqDqrRNY2YVGryIDKnhVF0oO2bbpano5PLz/4ISNGDn5cNcD3 U7r+bMNfkEmtljVUg6+elFoFktoMpkvDa6vKa71WkPtWH4meTsElN27FriFfAgpnug9C CjmIu2DcrGh5FuE74EZbYEvowWpXGVBBLWElhzSKudCpXU5jtGBtf5KYzhYXVL3dNlFQ M1Pw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531ERoDAMzfbnQqEFl4+wojIgrZIPiwqqoBrAKRiUhO0p6gAkeNr xQp9CJGugArK0Ztp2KMH4RYC7qjTaU4zf7R4FWnl++i/faw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyeEehn2Xl7yTzh1sG0f/+pYZ9Ddl7HQe/M6hGICEkGgELoQ/CdBp1rNkrEDJJsIr6xLqmBlYQBegdp8BQF224= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:758b:: with SMTP id s11mr2269167otk.294.1613566312111; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 04:51:52 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Michael Folkson Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 12:51:41 +0000 Message-ID: To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 15:05:26 +0000 Subject: [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: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 12:51:56 -0000 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 first meeting I (and others) thought the arguments had not been explored in depth and that we should have a follow up meeting almost 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/01838= 0.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 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/01841= 5.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 most 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 support 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 here. Thanks to the YouTube account =E2=80=9CBitcoin=E2=80=9D for setting 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 LockinOnTimeout. 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. However, from my perspective there was clearly more strong opposition (what would usually be deemed a NACK in Bitcoin Core review terminology) from Bitcoin Core contributors, Lightning developers and other community members against LOT=3Dtrue than there was for LOT=3Dfalse. Andrew Chow tried to summarize views from the meeting in this analysis: https://gist.github.com/achow101/3e179501290abb7049de198d46894c7c 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 put them in t= he 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 know how stro= ng 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 avoid those discussions unless prominent new information comes 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 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 UTC 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 engaging productively and in good faith. --=20 Michael Folkson Email: michaelfolkson@gmail.com Keybase: michaelfolkson PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3