Re: [bitcoin-dev] 7 Theses on a next step for BIP-119

[Michael Folkson <michaelfolkson@protonmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5338 bytes --]

> The client has a Speedy trial release similar to Taproots with parameters proposed to be....

As I've said before I was hoping we'd avoid this exercise. Best case, it wastes the time of people who could be working on all sorts of valuable projects for the ecosystem. Worst case, we take a Russian roulette style gamble with a chain split.

But here's a summary of the basic facts:

The latest Bitcoin Core release candidate (23.0) does not contain any new soft fork code, either CTV code or any new activation code. Running Bitcoin Core 23.0 out the box will not signal for any new soft fork and will not enforce any new soft fork rules (CTV or otherwise). Of course it will continue to enforce Taproot rules as Taproot activated last year.

There are a number of individuals who have stated opposition to attempting to activate a CTV soft fork in the near term:

https://gist.github.com/michaelfolkson/352a503f4f9fc5de89af528d86a1b718

Most of those individuals haven't logged their opposition on Jeremy's site:
https://utxos.org/signals/

Hence their views haven't been included or discussed in Jeremy's latest blog post.

Chain split risk

I can't predict how many full nodes and miners will run Jeremy's client attempting to activate CTV. One would expect that many will continue to run versions of Bitcoin Core that will not enforce CTV rules and will not activate it. But whether Jeremy's client will be a majority, significant minority, insignificant minority of full nodes and miners would be speculation on my part. (Personally I highly doubt those running Jeremy's client will be a majority which leaves a significant minority and insignificant minority as the most likely options).

Jeremy's client is intending to use Speedy Trial presumably with similar parameters to that used for Taproot. That would mean seeking 90 percent of miners to signal for this CTV soft fork activation attempt.

Assuming 90 percent of miners don't signal for it in one of the Speedy Trial windows then the activation attempt will have failed and it will be back in Jeremy's court whether he tries again with a different activation attempt.

Assuming 90 percent of miners do signal for it (unlikely in my opinion but presumably still a possibility) then the CTV soft fork could activate unless full nodes resist it. This resistance would most likely be in the form of a UASF style client which rejects blocks that apply the CTV rules and/or includes transactions that don't meet the CTV rules post activation. We would now be in chain split territory with two different assets and blockchains like we had with BTC and BCH.

If I oppose this activation attempt and the associated chain split risk what should I do?

Firstly, you can register your opposition to this soft fork activation attempt on Jeremy's site: https://utxos.org/signals/

It seems Jeremy will continue this activation attempt regardless but it will be useful for others to see clearly that this a contentious soft fork activation attempt and act accordingly. So far only 3 individuals' opposition is registered on his site.

Secondly, if it is looking like 90 percent (or whatever percentage Jeremy uses) of miners are going to signal for a CTV soft fork then you can consider joining a UASF style effort to resist the soft fork activation attempt. I will certainly seek to participate and will continue to inform this list of efforts in this direction.

The saddest thing is that if Jeremy's soft fork activation attempt causes the uncertainty, confusion and disruption I fear it could it will make future soft forks that do have community consensus orders of magnitude harder to pull off. There are a number of soft fork proposals that I'm personally excited about (enabling covenants, eltoo, Simplicity, CISA etc) that long term we might get with a sensible approach to only activating soft forks that have community consensus. But the more uncertainty, confusion and disruption we create over contentious soft forks the more dangerous any soft fork of any form will appear. The primary focus will need to be resisting soft forks that don't have community consensus and ensuring Bitcoin doesn't splinter into a large number of different assets/blockchains with different combinations of soft forks active.

So if you oppose this soft fork activation attempt please voice your opposition, run full node software that doesn't include CTV and CTV activation code such as Bitcoin Core and if/when necessary and available run full node software that proactively rejects application of the CTV rules.

--
Michael Folkson
Email: michaelfolkson at [protonmail.com](http://protonmail.com/)
Keybase: michaelfolkson
PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3

------- Original Message -------
On Tuesday, April 19th, 2022 at 18:31, Jeremy Rubin via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Devs,
>
> In advance of the CTV meeting today, I wanted to share what my next step is in advocating for CTV, as well as 7 theses for why I believe it to be the right course of action to take at this time.
>
> Please see the post at https://rubin.io/bitcoin/2022/04/17/next-steps-bip119/.
>
> As always, open to hear any and all feedback,
>
> Jeremy
>
> archived at: https://web.archive.org/web/20220419172825/https://rubin.io/bitcoin/2022/04/17/next-steps-bip119/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 11592 bytes --]