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
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
|
Return-Path: <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 287B7C0001
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 Feb 2021 19:52:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with UTF8SMTP id 0ADBD42FFA
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 Feb 2021 19:52:00 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.901 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mattcorallo.com
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with UTF8SMTP id RCVTdckz0KrA
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 Feb 2021 19:51:58 +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 smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPS id 98FE342FF5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 Feb 2021 19:51:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail.as397444.net (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPSA id 3E6484BE270;
Sun, 28 Feb 2021 19:51:56 +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=1614540064; t=1614541916;
bh=jMG0KIO3t8X5Q63bXeijlXM9CACRnt3T6JBlq5w7xYA=;
h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From;
b=lw+E+a9nOCwbnpVRfbPqtFzwpdGzy1rPRZFrnhif6fyEg4jb2L9nGCGGpmsD2SbNO
4gV39U25k+8RMvYyrAO2Wp/ViNyixo+MMvntFc5uWmKLp0SiFZmW/KMaci18N7L0jy
XRIfuc6YcKkgs6Hl4Q6Ua9AUN1Axi5P2PEGWRTh0MZYw/18Fu9ZjuOdFlNWzoKHZ15
MenxEHAqakOKuYpnJFC2EcJOsl8A6FgGrNUWhru10EZwUL8LD5ujo7AfmAb9bmVjbP
74LF2GQLi5ky7hxPHxGUG9+uZzomIUt/nAfLCKEYCC7si3fegOvG9QPFyk+GOe3U4l
tEY1OApVeKILQ==
Message-ID: <20c5eb39-915d-6af9-5b0a-f488ff40ef3f@mattcorallo.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2021 14:51:55 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit.edu>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <c35e1761-43ca-e157-6a5c-72d27f2c6c6e@mattcorallo.com>
<202102281720.07392.luke@dashjr.org>
<c6a7a7ab-ee68-6594-ebd0-60f38ba40c37@mattcorallo.com>
<CAD5xwhhRCBa86B0ApZ=VioZngREOh1bth4H=zk69k4xsZc9d0Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD5xwhhRCBa86B0ApZ=VioZngREOh1bth4H=zk69k4xsZc9d0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Straight Flag Day (Height) Taproot Activation
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: Sun, 28 Feb 2021 19:52:00 -0000
Note further that mandatory signaling isn't "just" a flag day - unlike a Taproot flag day (where miners running Bitcoin
Core unmodified today will not generate invalid blocks), a mandatory signaling flag day blatantly ignores goal (3) from
my original post - it results in any miner who has not taken active action (and ensured every part of their often-large
infrastructure has been correctly reconfigured) generating invalid blocks.
As for "Taproot" took too long, hey, at least if its locked in people can just build things assuming it exists. Some
already are, but once its clearly locked in, there's no reason to not continue other work at the same time.
Matt
On 2/28/21 14:43, Jeremy via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I agree with much of the logic presented by Matt here.
>
> BIP8 was intended to be simpler to agree on to maintain consensus, yet we find ourselves in a situation where a "tiny"
> parameter has the potential to cause great network disruption and confusion (rationality is not too useful a concept
> here given differing levels of sophistication and information). It is therefore much simpler and more likely to be
> universally understood by all network participants to just have a flag day. It is easier to communicate what users
> should do and when.
>
> This is ultimately not coercive to users because the upgrade for Taproot itself is provable and analyzable on its own,
> but activation parameters based on what % of economically relevant nodes are running an upgrade by a certain date are
> not. Selecting these sorts of complicated consensus parameters may ultimately present more opportunity for a cooptable
> consensus process than something more straightforward.
>
>
> That said, a few points strike me as worth delving into.
>
>
> 1) Con: Mandatory signalling is no different than a flag day. Mandatory signaling is effectively 2 flag days -- one for
> the signaling rule, 1 for the taproot type. The reason for the 2 week gap between flag day for signaling and flag day
> for taproot rules is, more or less, so that nodes who aren't taproot ready at the 1st flag day do not end up SPV mining
> (using standardness rules in mempool prevents them from mining an invalid block on top of a valid tip, but does not
> ensure the tip is valid).
> 2) Con: Releasing a flag day without releasing the LOT=true code leading up to that flag day means that clients would
> not be fully compatible with an early activation that could be proposed before the flag day is reached. E.g., LOT=true
> is a flag day that retains the possibility of being compatible with other BIP8 releases without changing software.
> 3) Pro: BIP-8 is partially in service of "early activation" and . I'm personally skeptical that early activation is/was
> ever a good idea. A fixed activation date may be largely superior for business purposes, software engineering schedules,
> etc. I think even with signaling BIP8, it would be possibly superior to activate rules at a fixed date (or a quantized
> set of fixed dates, e.g. guaranteeing at least 3 months but maybe more).
> 4) Pro: part of the argument for BIP-8=false is that it is possible that the rule could not activate, if signaling does
> not occur, providing additional stopgap against dev collusion and bugs. But BIP-8 can activate immediately (with start
> times being proposed 1 month after release?) so we don't have certainty around how much time there is for that secondary
> review process (read -- I think it isn't that valuable) and if there *is* a deadly bug discovered, we might want to
> hard-fork to fix it even if it isn't yet signaled for (e.g., if the rule activates it enables more mining reward). So I
> think that it's a healthier mindset to release a with definite deadline and not rule out having to do a hard fork if
> there is a grave issue (we shouldn't ever release a SF if we think this is at all likely, mind you).
> 5) Con: It's already taken so long for taproot, the schedule around taproot was based on the idea it could early
> activate, 2022 is now too far away. I don't know how to defray this other than, if your preferred idea is 1 year flag
> day, to do that via LOT=true so that taproot can still have early activation if desired.
>
> Overall I agree with the point that all the contention around LOT, makes a flag day look not so bad. And something
> closer to a flag day might not be so bad either for future forks as well.
>
> However, I think given the appetite for early activation, if a flag day is desired I think LOT=true is the best option
> at this time as it allows our flag day to remain compatible with such an early activation.
>
> I think we can also clearly communicate that LOT=true for Taproot is not a precedent setting occurence for any future
> forks (hold me accountable to not using this as precedent this should I ever advocate for a SF with similar release
> parameters).
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
|
