1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6222C0001
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 5 Mar 2021 18:23:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0C8A4EC06
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 5 Mar 2021 18:23:46 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dashjr.org
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id ZDvBFA6Mldzo
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 5 Mar 2021 18:23:45 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76A964EBC8
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 5 Mar 2021 18:23:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.lan (unknown [12.190.236.207])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8A68138A00A8;
Fri, 5 Mar 2021 18:17:55 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dashjr.org; s=zinan;
t=1614968314; bh=wdmftta9JjzeIBZZslz6PiHWCKxQM/8erAWJRNZE/fo=;
h=From:To:Subject:Date:Cc:References:In-Reply-To;
b=n42X4+kW7iaFLGw1jgKLyzqYteGgAp0Qx8flmffdjye5WP/ntyjQYdv1G5Bx3yUhX
N4aRMgTC7W9XoBSsY/KjG7wsIS4BTTWpUBXkZdkqV9yUrO4kt0cjB/YKsQjKM51HDJ
9B1ghaWF2wqhOh+nflNsuaeZ2SwPCyabwJAL0Ei4=
X-Hashcash: 1:25:210305:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::7hh6jd6P9E5KXhS3:SkVr
X-Hashcash: 1:25:210305:bitcoin-dev@rgrant.org::R=QavTZJM=CcElgg:artwr
X-Hashcash: 1:25:210305:keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com::s6aLLidVA5brSN=M:ayfWB
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>
X-KMail-QuotePrefix: >
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
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: Fri, 05 Mar 2021 18:23:47 -0000
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
|
