Re: [bitcoin-dev] Yesterday’s UASF (LOT=true) kick off meeting

[Michael Folkson <michaelfolkson@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3779 bytes --]

Hi Ariel

> I think Bitcoin is fine staying as is until that minority forks off with
their own alt-node....  A quick UASF fork allows for an early LOT=false
activation.

I think you misunderstand BIP 8 (LOT=true). Although no timetable has been
finalized as of yet (and hence we are in the realm of speculation rather
than facts), the earliest the MUST_SIGNAL period would kick in is around
July 2022. That doesn't sound very quick to me if you seek a LOT=false
release after a LOT=true release has failed to activate.

> The current risk to taproot and all future activations is a loud minority
of users who are threatening to co-opt a LOT=false activation by switching
the parameter

As I've said in previous emails to this list, some people are determined to
ignore the discussion and (open to all) meetings of recent weeks and block
progress until they find their philosopher's stone. They seek to ignore all
the work people have done laying out the options, communicating those
options to the community and narrowing them down. Instead they bring up
alternative proposals which were discussed and rejected weeks or months
ago. With this mindset we'll still be arguing about Taproot activation in
2030.

I get that there isn't overwhelming consensus on the LOT parameter, this is
a fact. But there won't be overwhelming consensus on any activation
mechanism, that has become clear. I am of the view that consensus on one
parameter of an activation mechanism does not need to be as high as it is
on the actual soft fork that is being activated (which does have
overwhelming consensus). And of course if and when a LOT=true (UASF)
version is released you are absolutely free not to run it. I hope (and
suspect) you would reconsider if July 2022 (or later) was approaching and
it was the only way to activate Taproot.

Thanks
Michael





On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 2:18 AM Ariel Luaces <arielluaces@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 12:25 PM Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > At this point in time it also appears the greatest risk to Taproot
> > dying a slow death is a small group of developers who think talking in
> > conservative tones and talking about endless philosophy makes Bitcoin
> > a conservative system. (It doesn’t, it just makes it a dying, decaying
> > one).
>
> The current risk to taproot and all future activations is a loud
> minority of users who are threatening to co-opt a LOT=false activation
> by switching the parameter and organizing a marketing blitz that could
> end in a fork if things don't go well.
> As long as that threat persists consensus won't be reached. Then an
> activation client probably won't be released because I don't expect
> many devs will have an appetite for writing code that either doesn't
> have consensus or code that will be manipulated into creating
> consensus conflicts.
> I think Bitcoin is fine staying as is until that minority forks off
> with their own alt-node. If the UASF minority is dead set on creating
> the alt-node then I only hope it's released quickly so the deadlock
> can break. A quick UASF fork allows for an early LOT=false activation.
>
> Cheers
> Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces
>
> > --
> > 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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5242 bytes --]