From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5DBAC0001 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 22:01:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B8D78427E for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 22:01:18 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=blockstream-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WRoPSIaLe3xE for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 22:01:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 02:46:36 by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-qt1-x835.google.com (mail-qt1-x835.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::835]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A6C08418A for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 22:01:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt1-x835.google.com with SMTP id v64so18870472qtd.5 for ; Wed, 03 Mar 2021 14:01:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=blockstream-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=3f7/nyrh/SlnshLGZWCHnUJNjXKl3Rb/ipIrUT25qwE=; b=B63lR7CIeC4QdGeeiPjBsJU8JSGfdgRi/V9N/nbVKVMP0c8oCiV58jR6SvDKnZ6ECK 2JYjk7pJv2TP2sguO5zK3mQNpOJIG/DjtPUYGvD8C3S/2qAMfH0DziVHHN9N8sztOB/r pgn6t1AveNZCZLDWBciDuVOc+2gEUZJTuKvYolWqsWtiCuzwOLYUoLdLq6DHvHXDmaQs N5TTGSUx+WSIxEhHdtBQaTVzSGh/2h8/83pqB4x6vBCEOAqlS4AJn3wFuQZd4Oax58n6 /3QFmSPcdXFMNuAEyKoM2pkRq7e+mSGjmhmEWW4xMk4oTn6GvjphR4y9w2urhfYuvsYp uoaw== 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; bh=3f7/nyrh/SlnshLGZWCHnUJNjXKl3Rb/ipIrUT25qwE=; b=H1veXr9Aq9WBLFmQf/cYLyBS0+krZnP8Phm0aWMVwBzWolmr7r2NWXy/C9N5ZQYIBC /CR2zw1O1TomFn29BLZFdJkz5diTJl5MT+TFemwzvlyywufw7gWxY/LQhx9Radpp48ar BTbOrBDNdHJcvMg32u4jvOfg6rCNqstZ5GNlbl/7bWgFS+AMEfspGPUHKsGMVFiPDFeF 3vxx8RtW45uoZOVqHVIupZQZXmrSFXehukxlkrTQpZ6BgVf+oT6K6VckJDgLJHMbUlhf HeLV12tt/wR5IIPsL4F76gWy51oNEGWis0FUbV8L3dFuvtAE0z8h0vi9/sfrppeOJSy0 SeBg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532kHMzZ6Te41Tmuc2XUr/JwibmR/DZELuna8lNbdTvkrildAEw5 jTh01ZsQkZzvqYqfO/s8HBY1CvzHM8kS7zAesyqm91Ik38c6/AFy X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz0SBicxWLdv975qhOvBtz0F0gd0/lceVBIXsh2puOqxUqplfAJK4Tf6y1BpuCJRE+jIRLlzXk0J/7dZ2qGmSY= X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:315:: with SMTP id q21mr658930qtw.324.1614798512333; Wed, 03 Mar 2021 11:08:32 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <3286a7eb-9deb-77d6-4527-58e0c5882ae2@riseup.net> In-Reply-To: <3286a7eb-9deb-77d6-4527-58e0c5882ae2@riseup.net> From: "Russell O'Connor" Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2021 14:08:21 -0500 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b646f805bca69385" Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making the case for flag day activation of taproot 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, 03 Mar 2021 22:01:18 -0000 --000000000000b646f805bca69385 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" While I support essentially any proposed taproot activation method, including a flag day activation, I think it is premature to call BIP8 dead. Even today, I still think that starting with BIP8 LOT=false is, generally speaking, considered a reasonably safe activation method in the sense that I think it will be widely considered as a "not wholly unacceptable" approach to activation. After a normal and successful Core update with LOT=false, we will have more data showing broad community support for the taproot upgrade in hand. In the next release, 6 months later or so, Core could then confidently deploy a BIP8 LOT=true client, should it prove to be necessary. A second Core deployment of LOT=true would mitigate some of the concerns with LOT=false, but still provide a period beforehand to objective actions taken by the community in support of taproot. We don't even have to have agreement today on a second deployment of LOT=true after 6 months to start the process of a LOT=false deployment. The later deployment will almost certainly be moot, and we will have 6 months to spend debating the LOT=true deployment versus doing a flag day activation or something else. I don't think we need to start self-sabotaging our efforts to get taproot activated this year just yet. Let's cherry-pick the commits of PR #19573 to split it up into non-MUST_SIGNAL and MUST_SIGNAL components, and get some reviews on that first. Then afterwards we can decide if BIP8 is dead or not. On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 9:39 AM Chris Belcher via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > The bitcoin world is close to total gridlock on the question of how to > activate taproot. There's no agreement on activation[1][2], and if an > agreement isn't reached then nothing happens. That would be really > terrible because we'd miss out on the benefits of taproot and > potentially other future soft forks. > > A major problem with BIP8 is that it would result to a situation where > different parts of the bitcoin ecosystem run different consensus rules. > Some people will run LOT=true and others LOT=false. Worst of all, it > becomes vulnerable to a twitter/reddit/social media blitz which could > attempt to move the date of miner activation around. > > Twitter and reddit drama provide a perfect cover for social attacks on > bitcoin. > > Forced signalling leads to brinksmanship. Where two or more sides > (backed up by social media drama) enter into a game of chicken with > deployed nodes. If one of them doesn't concede then we get a damaging > chain split. And the $1 trillion in value that the bitcoin network > protects is put at risk. From the point of view of a miner or big > exchange stuck in the middle, if they look at the ecosystem of twitter > and reddit (especially if you think about all the problems with bots and > sockpuppets) they have no idea which consensus rules they should > actually follow and exactly what date they take effect. Miners, > exchanges, merchants and the rest of the ecosystem exist to serve their > customers and users, and trouble happens when they don't know what their > customers really want. Social media attacks are not just a theoretical > concern; back during the block size drama, the bitcoin reddits were > targetted by bots, sockpuppets and brigading[3]. > > Enter flag day activation. With a flag day there can be no > brinksmanship. A social media blitz cant do anything except have its own > followers fork away. Crucially, miner signalling cant be used to change > the activation date for nodes that didn't choose to and just passively > follow signalling. Changing the activation date requires all those users > to actually run different node software. > > Flag day activation works simply: we choose a block height and after > that block height the new taproot rules become enforced. > > > Supporters of the permissionless, "users rule" approach of LOT=true > should be happy because it completely takes miners out of activation. > > Supporters of the safe, conservative approach of LOT=false can be made > happy with a few ways of derisking: > > * Getting mining pools, businesses and users to look at the code and ask > if they (a) think its either neutral or good for their business or use > case and (b) they believe others view it similarly and that the > consensus changes proposed have a good social consensus around them. > > * Setting the flag day far in the future (18 months or 2 years in the > original proposal[3]). > > > == What if flag day activation is used maliciously? == > > What if one day the Core developer team is co-opted and uses the flag > day method to do something bad? For example, a soft fork where sending > to certain blacklisted addresses is not allowed. The bitcoin user > community who wants to resist this can create their own > counter-soft-fork full node, where the first block after the flag day > MUST pay to one of those addresses on the blacklist. This forces a chain > split between the censorship rules and the no-censorship rules, and its > pretty obvious that the real bitcoin which most people follow will be > the chain without censorship. > > For example, if a group of users didn't agree with taproot then they > could create their own counter-flag-day-activation which requires that a > transaction is included that does an invalid-spend from a taproot output > in the first block after the flag day height. > > This is always possible with any user activated soft fork. In BIP8 > LOT=true it could be done by rejecting block headers with certain > version bits signalled. > > > == But it will take so long! == > > We seem to be at a deadlock now. This will take less time than any other > method, because other methods might never happen. BIP8 is dead and from > what I see there's no other credible plan. > > We've already waited years for taproot. I remember listening to talks > about bitcoin from 2015 of people discussing Schnorr signatures. And > given how slow segwit and p2sh adoption were its pretty likely that > we'll waiting a while for taproot to be actually adopted. > > > == A social media blitz could still try to activate it early == > > The brinksmanship only works because miner signalling can make many > other nodes activate early, even if those other nodes didn't do > anything. There can't be a game of chicken that puts the bitcoin network > at risk. > > If a group of people did adopt alternative node software which has a > shorter flag day, they actually have a risk of slow blocks. Because they > cant trick or force any other nodes to come along with them, they are > likely to only have a small economy and therefore would lose a lot of > hashrate. Imagine trading bitcoins for cash in person and instead of > waiting 10 minutes for a confirmation you have to wait 3 hours because > the blocks are slow. > > Also, the argument for downloading and running a different software only > to speed up activation is pretty weak. Taproot would activate in ~18 > months, so why are you so impatient that you need it in 6 months? And > risk slow blocks for you while doing so? The big difference with BIP148 > the segwit UASF, is that people *had to* run some other software > otherwise they would get *no soft fork at all*. > > > == Without miner signalling how do we know the new rules are even > activated? == > > When did you see miners signalling their support for the inflation > schedule? > > Bitcoin's rules are enforced by wallets backed by full nodes. You'll > always know if your own full node is enforcing the new rules. The thing > that matters isnt miner signalling but your own full node, and the nodes > of those you trade with. > > Flag day activation is quite similar to the way block reward halvenings > work. At and after block height 630000 miners are only allowed to create > 6.25 BTC rather than 12.5 BTC. Everyone knows that if miners continued > to create 12.5 BTC or more they would be unable to sell or spend those > coins anywhere. > > In 2017 when segwit was being activated people created a huge list of > various bitcoin companies, merchants and wallets: > > https://web.archive.org/web/20171228111943/https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/ > Looking at that list, you would know that if someone stole coins from a > segwit address they would be unable to deposit them in many exchanges > and merchants: Bitrefill, Bitstamp, Kraken, Localbitcoins, Paxful, > Vaultoro, HitBTC, etc. > > Then what happened is only a month after S2X was beaten this guy moved > 40000 BTC to a segwit address, confident about the power of the network > to protect his coins. > > https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/7tcmi4/bitcointalks_famous_user_loaded_moved_his_40k_btc/ > > If there's ever any doubt about flag day activation we can always draw > up a similar list, although if there's broad consensus about it then > there's no reason why bitcoin businesses wouldn't upgrade to the latest > Core, like they did with every other previous soft fork. > > > == This gives the impression that Core developers control the protocol == > > This objection has a mirror image argument: BIP8 with LOT=false gives > the impression that miners control the protocol(!) > > Eventually some group has to make a decision. We will ask the bitcoin > economy and users what they think of flag day activation. It's pretty > clear that nobody seriously objects to taproot, and as described above > if Core developers did something evil the community could resist it with > a counter-flag-day-activation. > > > > == TL;DR == > > I believe flag day activation is the way forward. It should answer all > the objections and risks which make other methods too controversial. > Let's go ahead and bring taproot to bitcoin! > > > > == References == > > [1] - > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018498.html > luke-jr posts saying LOT=false in his view reintroduces a bug, he > compares it to introducing an inflation bug and just hoping that miners > will not exploit it. > > [2] - > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018425.html > This whole thread has many people disagreeing with LOT=true > > [3] - > > https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4biob5/research_into_instantaneous_vote_behavior_in/ > > > https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3v04pd/can_we_please_have_a_civil_discussion_about/cxjnz1d/?context=1 > > > https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/41ykkt/members_trying_to_destroy_bitcoin_on_this_thread/cz6ccka/?context=3 > > [4] - > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018495.html > Matt Corallo's flag day activation proposal > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --000000000000b646f805bca69385 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
While I support essentially any proposed taproot acti= vation method, including a flag day activation, I think it is premature to = call BIP8 dead.

Even today, I still think that sta= rting with BIP8 LOT=3Dfalse is, generally speaking, considered a reasonably= safe activation method in the sense that I think it will be widely conside= red as a "not wholly unacceptable" approach to activation.
<= div>
After a normal and successful Core update with LOT=3Dfal= se, we will have more data showing broad community support for the taproot = upgrade in hand.=C2=A0 In the next release, 6 months later or so, Core coul= d then confidently deploy a BIP8 LOT=3Dtrue client, should it prove to be n= ecessary.=C2=A0 A second Core deployment of LOT=3Dtrue would mitigate some = of the concerns with LOT=3Dfalse, but still provide a period beforehand to = objective actions taken by the community in support of taproot.=C2=A0 We do= n't even have to have agreement today on a second deployment of LOT=3Dt= rue after 6 months to start the process of a LOT=3Dfalse deployment. The la= ter deployment will almost certainly be moot, and we will have 6 months to = spend debating the LOT=3Dtrue deployment versus doing a flag day activation= or something else.

I don't think we need = to start self-sabotaging our efforts to get taproot activated this year jus= t yet.=C2=A0 Let's cherry-pick the commits of PR #19573 to split it up = into non-MUST_SIGNAL and MUST_SIGNAL components, and get some reviews on th= at first.=C2=A0 Then afterwards we can decide if BIP8 is dead or not.

On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 9:39 AM Chris Belcher via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxf= oundation.org> wrote:
The bitcoin world is close to total gridlock on the question o= f how to
activate taproot. There's no agreement on activation[1][2], and if an agreement isn't reached then nothing happens. That would be really
terrible because we'd miss out on the benefits of taproot and
potentially other future soft forks.

A major problem with BIP8 is that it would result to a situation where
different parts of the bitcoin ecosystem run different consensus rules.
Some people will run LOT=3Dtrue and others LOT=3Dfalse. Worst of all, it becomes vulnerable to a twitter/reddit/social media blitz which could
attempt to move the date of miner activation around.

Twitter and reddit drama provide a perfect cover for social attacks on
bitcoin.

Forced signalling leads to brinksmanship. Where two or more sides
(backed up by social media drama) enter into a game of chicken with
deployed nodes. If one of them doesn't concede then we get a damaging chain split. And the $1 trillion in value that the bitcoin network
protects is put at risk. From the point of view of a miner or big
exchange stuck in the middle, if they look at the ecosystem of twitter
and reddit (especially if you think about all the problems with bots and sockpuppets) they have no idea which consensus rules they should
actually follow and exactly what date they take effect. Miners,
exchanges, merchants and the rest of the ecosystem exist to serve their
customers and users, and trouble happens when they don't know what thei= r
customers really want. Social media attacks are not just a theoretical
concern; back during the block size drama, the bitcoin reddits were
targetted by bots, sockpuppets and brigading[3].

Enter flag day activation. With a flag day there can be no
brinksmanship. A social media blitz cant do anything except have its own followers fork away. Crucially, miner signalling cant be used to change
the activation date for nodes that didn't choose to and just passively<= br> follow signalling. Changing the activation date requires all those users to actually run different node software.

Flag day activation works simply: we choose a block height and after
that block height the new taproot rules become enforced.


Supporters of the permissionless, "users rule" approach of LOT=3D= true
should be happy because it completely takes miners out of activation.

Supporters of the safe, conservative approach of LOT=3Dfalse can be made happy with a few ways of derisking:

* Getting mining pools, businesses and users to look at the code and ask if they (a) think its either neutral or good for their business or use
case and (b) they believe others view it similarly and that the
consensus changes proposed have a good social consensus around them.

* Setting the flag day far in the future (18 months or 2 years in the
original proposal[3]).


=3D=3D What if flag day activation is used maliciously? =3D=3D

What if one day the Core developer team is co-opted and uses the flag
day method to do something bad? For example, a soft fork where sending
to certain blacklisted addresses is not allowed. The bitcoin user
community who wants to resist this can create their own
counter-soft-fork full node, where the first block after the flag day
MUST pay to one of those addresses on the blacklist. This forces a chain split between the censorship rules and the no-censorship rules, and its
pretty obvious that the real bitcoin which most people follow will be
the chain without censorship.

For example, if a group of users didn't agree with taproot then they could create their own counter-flag-day-activation which requires that a transaction is included that does an invalid-spend from a taproot output in the first block after the flag day height.

This is always possible with any user activated soft fork. In BIP8
LOT=3Dtrue it could be done by rejecting block headers with certain
version bits signalled.


=3D=3D But it will take so long! =3D=3D

We seem to be at a deadlock now. This will take less time than any other method, because other methods might never happen. BIP8 is dead and from
what I see there's no other credible plan.

We've already waited years for taproot. I remember listening to talks about bitcoin from 2015 of people discussing Schnorr signatures. And
given how slow segwit and p2sh adoption were its pretty likely that
we'll waiting a while for taproot to be actually adopted.


=3D=3D A social media blitz could still try to activate it early =3D=3D

The brinksmanship only works because miner signalling can make many
other nodes activate early, even if those other nodes didn't do
anything. There can't be a game of chicken that puts the bitcoin networ= k
at risk.

If a group of people did adopt alternative node software which has a
shorter flag day, they actually have a risk of slow blocks. Because they cant trick or force any other nodes to come along with them, they are
likely to only have a small economy and therefore would lose a lot of
hashrate. Imagine trading bitcoins for cash in person and instead of
waiting 10 minutes for a confirmation you have to wait 3 hours because
the blocks are slow.

Also, the argument for downloading and running a different software only to speed up activation is pretty weak. Taproot would activate in ~18
months, so why are you so impatient that you need it in 6 months? And
risk slow blocks for you while doing so? The big difference with BIP148
the segwit UASF, is that people *had to* run some other software
otherwise they would get *no soft fork at all*.


=3D=3D Without miner signalling how do we know the new rules are even
activated? =3D=3D

When did you see miners signalling their support for the inflation schedule= ?

Bitcoin's rules are enforced by wallets backed by full nodes. You'l= l
always know if your own full node is enforcing the new rules. The thing
that matters isnt miner signalling but your own full node, and the nodes of those you trade with.

Flag day activation is quite similar to the way block reward halvenings
work. At and after block height 630000 miners are only allowed to create 6.25 BTC rather than 12.5 BTC. Everyone knows that if miners continued
to create 12.5 BTC or more they would be unable to sell or spend those
coins anywhere.

In 2017 when segwit was being activated people created a huge list of
various bitcoin companies, merchants and wallets:
https://web.ar= chive.org/web/20171228111943/https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/
Looking at that list, you would know that if someone stole coins from a
segwit address they would be unable to deposit them in many exchanges
and merchants: Bitrefill, Bitstamp, Kraken, Localbitcoins, Paxful,
Vaultoro, HitBTC, etc.

Then what happened is only a month after S2X was beaten this guy moved
40000 BTC to a segwit address, confident about the power of the network
to protect his coins.
h= ttps://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/7tcmi4/bitcointalks_famous_user_lo= aded_moved_his_40k_btc/

If there's ever any doubt about flag day activation we can always draw<= br> up a similar list, although if there's broad consensus about it then there's no reason why bitcoin businesses wouldn't upgrade to the la= test
Core, like they did with every other previous soft fork.


=3D=3D This gives the impression that Core developers control the protocol = =3D=3D

This objection has a mirror image argument: BIP8 with LOT=3Dfalse gives
the impression that miners control the protocol(!)

Eventually some group has to make a decision. We will ask the bitcoin
economy and users what they think of flag day activation. It's pretty clear that nobody seriously objects to taproot, and as described above
if Core developers did something evil the community could resist it with a counter-flag-day-activation.



=3D=3D TL;DR =3D=3D

I believe flag day activation is the way forward. It should answer all
the objections and risks which make other methods too controversial.
Let's go ahead and bring taproot to bitcoin!



=3D=3D References =3D=3D

[1] -
https://lists.linux= foundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018498.html
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 luke-jr posts saying LOT=3Dfalse in his view reintrodu= ces a bug, he
compares it to introducing an inflation bug and just hoping that miners
will not exploit it.

[2] -
https://lists.linux= foundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018425.html
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 This whole thread has many people disagreeing with LOT= =3Dtrue

[3] -
https:= //old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4biob5/research_into_instantaneous_vote= _behavior_in/

https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3v04pd/can_we_please= _have_a_civil_discussion_about/cxjnz1d/?context=3D1

https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/41ykkt/members_= trying_to_destroy_bitcoin_on_this_thread/cz6ccka/?context=3D3

[4] -
https://lists.linux= foundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018495.html
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Matt Corallo's flag day activation proposal
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--000000000000b646f805bca69385--