summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorMatt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>2021-02-18 09:42:58 -0500
committerbitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>2021-02-18 14:43:05 +0000
commit45ec077716ac5d1dcae05f97d7b1bc3e2ac265af (patch)
treec91a476b015a91f26318acb1fedff12d5749c7c5
parentefbffbb0587535eb1ce078c53e96e7b00cb5dc84 (diff)
downloadpi-bitcoindev-45ec077716ac5d1dcae05f97d7b1bc3e2ac265af.tar.gz
pi-bitcoindev-45ec077716ac5d1dcae05f97d7b1bc3e2ac265af.zip
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Yesterday's Taproot activation meeting on lockinontimeout (LOT)
-rw-r--r--3c/1b2d70353c7c2f74068a8819e735e3213cb0a3354
1 files changed, 354 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/3c/1b2d70353c7c2f74068a8819e735e3213cb0a3 b/3c/1b2d70353c7c2f74068a8819e735e3213cb0a3
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..941628df2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/3c/1b2d70353c7c2f74068a8819e735e3213cb0a3
@@ -0,0 +1,354 @@
+Return-Path: <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
+Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136])
+ by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34250C000D
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:43:05 +0000 (UTC)
+Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
+ by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 154D5605CE
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:43:05 +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 lA2O6VhJRBKQ
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:43:03 +0000 (UTC)
+Received: by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix, from userid 1001)
+ id 3703660613; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:43:03 +0000 (UTC)
+X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
+Received: from mail.as397444.net (mail.as397444.net [69.59.18.99])
+ by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPS id 39456605CE
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:43:00 +0000 (UTC)
+Received: by mail.as397444.net (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPSA id 4A18D4A3AFE;
+ Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:42:58 +0000 (UTC)
+X-DKIM-Note: Keys used to sign are likely public at https://as397444.net/dkim/
+DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mattcorallo.com;
+ s=1613658063; t=1613659378;
+ bh=UQZXRtiGFgyN4gdfFzoWo007ROa7nbdJqr+k1AGAIiE=;
+ h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From;
+ b=TRZxavcUpXMxWP9pnwyvBDgj5PSnKmj7VX1SfCdMST1oi9ymdH6NShS1yXUjmED3J
+ 2hNbua8eeXmiUxOtBoU5YqCRc3f/EfKUhQmDStHENSfZSXgj9BRGFqg3DbdwAf8iPM
+ tfZWKQP2t1RvVcJm1zOoUBhvf2cEe7SQWB+Cgct8GnaqfV7PsLZ0k6nvxAaaz/In2e
+ yNjkPeuLUsga8z6q3gk/oUK3/tDgpiWAej75nHI1BY9YBFzD0B2HhG1UlCEIiQOE2w
+ GYVjHFcsUTUWnc4QBk8SfTBJxKSeJBAM1UcVtFDiaxfN54m7nJRcSNoc0OSDGyFP97
+ k/nrNu/75D3AQ==
+Message-ID: <7b8543c3-8ff2-3a6a-b2d4-f4a6cf150d78@mattcorallo.com>
+Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 09:42:58 -0500
+MIME-Version: 1.0
+Content-Language: en-US
+To: Michael Folkson <michaelfolkson@gmail.com>
+References: <CAFvNmHSHu0gqVgWxOCJnSTf5mxpWsMF9FrMQ+_X+uyR3P4QCsg@mail.gmail.com>
+ <8591CF93-E574-4C23-90D5-FA410637DECD@mattcorallo.com>
+ <CAFvNmHSwRGEy-kE8OA4mcDJ+fJjO7J1ckThWY=wqv4yge-MA1Q@mail.gmail.com>
+From: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
+In-Reply-To: <CAFvNmHSwRGEy-kE8OA4mcDJ+fJjO7J1ckThWY=wqv4yge-MA1Q@mail.gmail.com>
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
+Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
+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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
+List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
+ <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
+List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
+List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
+List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
+List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
+ <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
+X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:43:05 -0000
+
+We've had several softforks in Bitcoin which, through the course of their activation, had a several-block reorg. That
+should be indication enough that we need to very carefully consider activation to ensure we reduce the risk of that as
+much as absolutely possible. Again, while I think Taproot is a huge improvement and am looking forward to being able to
+use it, getting unlucky and hitting a 4-block reorg that happens to include a double-spend and some PR around an
+exchange losing millions would be worse than having Taproot is good.
+
+Matt
+
+On 2/18/21 09:26, Michael Folkson wrote:
+> 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 <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com <mailto:lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>> wrote:
+>
+> If the eventual outcome is that different implementations (that have material *transaction processing* userbases,
+> and I’m not sure to what extent that’s 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
+>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
+>>
+>> 
+>> Right, that is one option. Personally I would prefer a Bitcoin Core release sets LOT=false (based on what I have
+>> heard from Bitcoin Core contributors) and a community effort releases a version with LOT=true. 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=false 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 <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com <mailto:ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>> 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 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=true or LOT=false, would be to have a release that
+>> requires a `taprootlot=1` or `taprootlot=0` 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
+>> <mailto: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 quote 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 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 aren't forced to run any particular software
+>> version, quite the opposite. Defaults 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=true 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 handful 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 activate
+>> 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/018380.html
+>> <https://lists.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=false in a software release
+>> appears to be no more safe than LOT=true.
+>> > >
+>> > > > 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 this perception that LOT=true is antagonistic to miners. I actually think 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=false.
+>> > >
+>> > > > 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 timeline.
+>> > >
+>> > > 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=false 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
+>> worst case scenarios in advance and doing so is not antagonistic or destructive. 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 <http://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=false in protocol implementations in my
+>> email :)
+>> > >
+>> > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 5:43 AM Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces@gmail.com
+>> <mailto: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 of 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 as long as it exists as a possibility
+>> in people's minds.
+>> > > > The only thing a UASF doesn't have is miner support above an agreed activation threshold (some number
+>> above %51).
+>> > > > I say this because it strikes me when people say that they are for LOT=true 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 upgrade 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=true 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 handful 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=false 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 there 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 our 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 timeline.
+>> > > > Cheers
+>> > > > Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces
+>> > > > On Feb 17, 2021, at 7:05 AM, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
+>> <mailto: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=false over LOT=true 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/018380.html
+>> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018380.html>
+>> > > > >
+>> > > > > In that mailing list post I outlined the arguments for LOT=true (T1 to
+>> > > > > T6) and arguments for LOT=false (F1 to F6) in their strongest form I
+>> > > > > could. David Harding responded with an additional argument for
+>> > > > > LOT=false (F7) here:
+>> > > > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018415.html
+>> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018415.html>
+>> > > > >
+>> > > > > These meetings are very challenging given they are open to all, you
+>> > > > > don’t know who will attend and you don’t know most people’s views in
+>> > > > > advance. I tried to give time for both the LOT=true arguments and the
+>> > > > > LOT=false 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 <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 “Bitcoin” for setting up the livestream:
+>> > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpl5q1ovMLM <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpl5q1ovMLM>)
+>> > > > >
+>> > > > > A summary of the meeting was provided by Luke Dashjr on Mastodon here:
+>> > > > > https://bitcoinhackers.org/@lukedashjr/105742918779234566
+>> <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’t
+>> > > > > overwhelming consensus for either LOT=true or LOT=false. 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=true than there was for LOT=false. Andrew Chow
+>> > > > > tried to summarize views from the meeting in this analysis:
+>> > > > > https://gist.github.com/achow101/3e179501290abb7049de198d46894c7c
+>> <https://gist.github.com/achow101/3e179501290abb7049de198d46894c7c>
+>> > > > >
+>> > > > > I am also aware of other current and previous Bitcoin Core
+>> > > > > contributors and Lightning developers who didn’t attend the meeting in
+>> > > > > person who are opposed to LOT=true. I don’t want to put 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 <http://taprootactivation.com> some mining pools
+>> > > > > expressed a preference for lot=false though I don’t know 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=false.
+>> > > > > 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’ve
+>> > > > > 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.
+>> > >
+>> > > --
+>> > > Michael Folkson
+>> > > Email: michaelfolkson@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
+>> > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
+>> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>
+>>
+>>
+>>
+>>
+>> --
+>> Michael Folkson
+>> Email: michaelfolkson@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
+>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
+>> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>
+>
+>
+>
+> --
+> Michael Folkson
+> Email: michaelfolkson@gmail.com <mailto:michaelfolkson@gmail.com>
+> Keybase: michaelfolkson
+> PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3
+