Message-ID: <4947b02e-90fb-9044-4552-767de805ff14@mattcorallo.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2021 17:14:10 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Russell O'Connor <roconnor@blockstream.com>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <3286a7eb-9deb-77d6-4527-58e0c5882ae2@riseup.net>
 <CAMZUoKkWmdwi-VH3WUvFfG+5MDK3xhvZUac3eBQbxXX_b_btWw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMZUoKkWmdwi-VH3WUvFfG+5MDK3xhvZUac3eBQbxXX_b_btWw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making the case for flag day activation of taproot
Precedence: list


On 3/3/21 14:08, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 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.

How do you propose avoiding divergent consensus rules on the network, something which a number of commentors on this 
list have publicly committed to?

> 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.

I think this is one of the strongest arguments against a flag day activation, but, as I described in more detail in the 
thread "Straight Flag Day (Height) Taproot Activation", I'm not sure we aren't there enough already.

> In the next release, 6 months later or so, Core could then confidently deploy a BIP8 LOT=true 

Could you clarify what an acceptable timeline is, then? Six months from release of new consensus rules to activation (in 
the case of a one-year original window) seems incredibly agressive for a flag-day activation, let alone one with 
forced-signaling, which would require significantly higher level of adoption to avoid network split risk. In such a 
world, we'd probably get Taproot faster with a flag day from day one.

> 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.

That was precisely the original goal with the LOT=false movement - do something easy and avoid having to hash out all 
the technical details of a second deployment. Sadly, that's no longer tennable as a number of people are publicly 
committed to deploying LOT=true software on the network ASAP.

Matt