From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Ryan Grant <bitcoin-dev@rgrant.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2021 18:17:40 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10
References: <3286a7eb-9deb-77d6-4527-58e0c5882ae2@riseup.net>
 <CALeFGL2oh5WZi0y64Q0-FjANE8W3GoBrXFNo=9a1OpjcssT30w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMnpzfrTkP=9JXHg2+1Xz03q34w-YoB_Nff5trw9OyqOSqB_0A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMnpzfrTkP=9JXHg2+1Xz03q34w-YoB_Nff5trw9OyqOSqB_0A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <202103051817.40615.luke@dashjr.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making the case for flag day activation of taproot
Precedence: list

On Friday 05 March 2021 14:51:12 Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 7:32 PM Keagan McClelland via bitcoin-dev
>
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > So that leads me to believe here that the folks who oppose LOT=true
> > primarily have an issue with forced signaling, which personally I
> > don't care about as much, not the idea of committing to a UASF from
> > the get go.
>
> The biggest disconnect is between two goals: modern soft-fork
> activation's "Don't (needlessly) lose hashpower to un-upgraded
> miners"; and UASF's must-signal strategy to prevent inaction.
>
>  
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2020-January/017547
>.html
>
> This question dives to the heart of Bitcoin's far-out future.
> Of two important principles, which principle is more important:
>
>   - to allow everyone (even miners) to operate on the contract they
>     accepted when entering the system; or

There was never any such a contract. Even full nodes must upgrade in a 
softfork, or they lose their security and become comparable to light wallets.

>   - to protect against protocol sclerosis for the project as a whole?

What?

> Do miners have a higher obligation to evaluate upgrades than economic
> nodes implementing cold storage and infrequent spends?  If they do,
> then so far it has been implicit.  LOT=true would make that obligation
> explicit.

Miners either make valid blocks or they don't.
The only thing they "need" to evaluate is the market for their work.

Luke