Message-ID: <281679eb-860b-c6cb-7e7a-5ae28b60f149@mattcorallo.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2021 11:49:57 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <c35e1761-43ca-e157-6a5c-72d27f2c6c6e@mattcorallo.com>
 <20210303145902.cl4mzg6l7avjboil@erisian.com.au>
From: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210303145902.cl4mzg6l7avjboil@erisian.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Straight Flag Day (Height) Taproot Activation
Precedence: list


On 3/3/21 09:59, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I think it would be worthwhile to also update getblocktemplate so that
> miners signal uptake for something like three or four retarget periods
> prior to activation, without that signalling having any consensus-level
> effect. That should allow miners and businesses to adjust their
> expectations for how much hashpower might not be enforcing taproot rules
> when generating blocks -- potentially allowing miners to switch pools
> to one running an up to date node, pools to reduce the amount of time
> they spend mining on top of unvalidated headers, businesses to increase
> confirmation requirements or prepare for the possibility of an increase
> in invalid-block entries in their logs, etc.

I strongly agree. Ideally such signaling could be placed in the witness nonce, however this may require pool updates to 
ensure pool server software is not assuming the 32-byte-0-nonce in wide use today. It is a worthwhile change in any 
case, as it avoids the need to change pool software for future forks which place commitments in the nonce.

>> 2) The high node-level-adoption bar is one of the most critical goals, and
>> the one most currently in jeopardy in a BIP 8 approach.
> 
> A couple of days ago I would have disagreed with this; but with Luke
> now strongly pushing against implementing lot=false, I can at least see
> your point...

Right. It may be the case that the minority group threatening to fork off onto a lot=true chain is not large enough to 
give a second thought to. However, I'm not certain that its worth the risk, and, as Chris noted in his post this 
morning, that approach is likely to include more drama.

Matt