MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAFvNmHTGkQJnsp7J8q0W3rf2j_djO0J0GNFzrhTpdAvN1GihEA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFvNmHTGkQJnsp7J8q0W3rf2j_djO0J0GNFzrhTpdAvN1GihEA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2021 11:21:34 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJowKgKicnS=aLD4yk9t9GHChcoED3VBXuqFW0JuvCoZtNbTeg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Folkson <michaelfolkson@gmail.com>, 
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000031e59505bbdb1567"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Yesterday's Taproot activation meeting on
 lockinontimeout (LOT)
Precedence: list

--00000000000031e59505bbdb1567
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I think the most important thing is that the configuration setting is
advertised if somebody were to query the node for its capabilities.

Is this the case?

That way the default value isn't really the important thing.

There are longstanding and well-known nodes, for example.  Community
support and visibility for a UASF is the most important aspect.

I looked over the threads and I don't think I saw the broadcast nature of
this setting clearly discussed.


On Wed, Feb 17, 2021, 10:10 AM Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Yesterday (February 16th) we held a second meeting on Taproot
> activation on IRC which again was open to all. Despite what appeared
> to be majority support for LOT=3Dfalse over LOT=3Dtrue in the first
> meeting I (and others) thought the arguments had not been explored in
> depth and that we should have a follow up meeting almost entirely
> focused on whether LOT (lockinontimeout) should be set to true or
> false.
>
> The meeting was announced here:
>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018=
380.html
>
> In that mailing list post I outlined the arguments for LOT=3Dtrue (T1 to
> T6) and arguments for LOT=3Dfalse (F1 to F6) in their strongest form I
> could. David Harding responded with an additional argument for
> LOT=3Dfalse (F7) here:
>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018=
415.html
>
> These meetings are very challenging given they are open to all, you
> don=E2=80=99t know who will attend and you don=E2=80=99t know most people=
=E2=80=99s views in
> advance. I tried to give time for both the LOT=3Dtrue arguments and the
> LOT=3Dfalse arguments to be discussed as I knew there was support for
> both. We only tried evaluating which had more support and which had
> more strong opposition towards the end of the meeting.
>
> The conversation log is here:
> http://gnusha.org/taproot-activation/2021-02-16.log
>
> (If you are so inclined you can watch a video of the meeting here.
> Thanks to the YouTube account =E2=80=9CBitcoin=E2=80=9D for setting up th=
e livestream:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dvpl5q1ovMLM)
>
> A summary of the meeting was provided by Luke Dashjr on Mastodon here:
> https://bitcoinhackers.org/@lukedashjr/105742918779234566
>
> Today's #Bitcoin #Taproot meeting was IMO largely unproductive, but we
> did manage to come to consensus on everything but LockinOnTimeout.
>
> Activation height range: 693504-745920
>
> MASF threshold: 1815/2016 blocks (90%)
>
> Keep in mind only ~100 people showed for the meetings, hardly
> representative of the entire community.
>
> So, these details remain JUST a proposal for now.
>
> It seems inevitable that there won't be consensus on LOT.
>
> Everyone will have to choose for himself. :/
>
> Personally I agree with most of this. I agree that there wasn=E2=80=99t
> overwhelming consensus for either LOT=3Dtrue or LOT=3Dfalse. However, fro=
m
> my perspective there was clearly more strong opposition (what would
> usually be deemed a NACK in Bitcoin Core review terminology) from
> Bitcoin Core contributors, Lightning developers and other community
> members against LOT=3Dtrue than there was for LOT=3Dfalse. Andrew Chow
> tried to summarize views from the meeting in this analysis:
> https://gist.github.com/achow101/3e179501290abb7049de198d46894c7c
>
> I am also aware of other current and previous Bitcoin Core
> contributors and Lightning developers who didn=E2=80=99t attend the meeti=
ng in
> person who are opposed to LOT=3Dtrue. I don=E2=80=99t want to put them in=
 the
> spotlight for no reason but if you go through the conversation logs of
> not only the meeting but the weeks of discussion prior to this meeting
> you will see their views evaluated on the ##taproot-activation
> channel. In addition, on taprootactivation.com some mining pools
> expressed a preference for lot=3Dfalse though I don=E2=80=99t know how st=
rong
> that preference was.
>
> I am only one voice but it is my current assessment that if we are to
> attempt to finalize Taproot activation parameters and propose them to
> the community at this time our only option is to propose LOT=3Dfalse.
> Any further delay appears to me counterproductive in our collective
> aim to get the Taproot soft fork activated as early as possible.
>
> Obviously others are free to disagree with that assessment and
> continue discussions but personally I will be attempting to avoid
> those discussions unless prominent new information comes to light or
> various specific individuals change their minds.
>
> Next week we are planning a code review of the Bitcoin Core PR #19573
> which was initially delayed because of this LOT discussion. As I=E2=80=99=
ve
> said previously that will be loosely following the format of the
> Bitcoin Core PR review club and will be lower level and more
> technical. That is planned for Tuesday February 23rd at 19:00 UTC on
> the IRC channel ##taproot-activation.
>
> Thanks to the meeting participants (and those who joined the
> discussion on the channel prior and post the meeting) for engaging
> productively and in good faith.
>
> --
> Michael Folkson
> Email: michaelfolkson@gmail.com
> Keybase: michaelfolkson
> PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--00000000000031e59505bbdb1567
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto">I think the most important thing is that the configuratio=
n setting is advertised if somebody were to query the node for its capabili=
ties.<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Is this the case?</div><=
div dir=3D"auto"><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">That way the=
 default value isn&#39;t really the important thing.</div><div dir=3D"auto"=
><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">There are longstanding and well-known nodes, f=
or example.=C2=A0 Community support and visibility for a UASF is the most i=
mportant aspect.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">I looke=
d over the threads and I don&#39;t think I saw the broadcast nature of this=
 setting clearly discussed.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"au=
to"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div></div=
></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr"=
>On Wed, Feb 17, 2021, 10:10 AM Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfo=
undation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" styl=
e=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Yesterd=
ay (February 16th) we held a second meeting on Taproot<br>
activation on IRC which again was open to all. Despite what appeared<br>
to be majority support for LOT=3Dfalse over LOT=3Dtrue in the first<br>
meeting I (and others) thought the arguments had not been explored in<br>
depth and that we should have a follow up meeting almost entirely<br>
focused on whether LOT (lockinontimeout) should be set to true or<br>
false.<br>
<br>
The meeting was announced here:<br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-Feb=
ruary/018380.html" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://=
lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018380.html</=
a><br>
<br>
In that mailing list post I outlined the arguments for LOT=3Dtrue (T1 to<br=
>
T6) and arguments for LOT=3Dfalse (F1 to F6) in their strongest form I<br>
could. David Harding responded with an additional argument for<br>
LOT=3Dfalse (F7) here:<br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-Feb=
ruary/018415.html" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://=
lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018415.html</=
a><br>
<br>
These meetings are very challenging given they are open to all, you<br>
don=E2=80=99t know who will attend and you don=E2=80=99t know most people=
=E2=80=99s views in<br>
advance. I tried to give time for both the LOT=3Dtrue arguments and the<br>
LOT=3Dfalse arguments to be discussed as I knew there was support for<br>
both. We only tried evaluating which had more support and which had<br>
more strong opposition towards the end of the meeting.<br>
<br>
The conversation log is here:<br>
<a href=3D"http://gnusha.org/taproot-activation/2021-02-16.log" rel=3D"nore=
ferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http://gnusha.org/taproot-activation/2=
021-02-16.log</a><br>
<br>
(If you are so inclined you can watch a video of the meeting here.<br>
Thanks to the YouTube account =E2=80=9CBitcoin=E2=80=9D for setting up the =
livestream:<br>
<a href=3D"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dvpl5q1ovMLM" rel=3D"noreferrer=
 noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dvpl5q1ovML=
M</a>)<br>
<br>
A summary of the meeting was provided by Luke Dashjr on Mastodon here:<br>
<a href=3D"https://bitcoinhackers.org/@lukedashjr/105742918779234566" rel=
=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://bitcoinhackers.org/@lu=
kedashjr/105742918779234566</a><br>
<br>
Today&#39;s #Bitcoin #Taproot meeting was IMO largely unproductive, but we<=
br>
did manage to come to consensus on everything but LockinOnTimeout.<br>
<br>
Activation height range: 693504-745920<br>
<br>
MASF threshold: 1815/2016 blocks (90%)<br>
<br>
Keep in mind only ~100 people showed for the meetings, hardly<br>
representative of the entire community.<br>
<br>
So, these details remain JUST a proposal for now.<br>
<br>
It seems inevitable that there won&#39;t be consensus on LOT.<br>
<br>
Everyone will have to choose for himself. :/<br>
<br>
Personally I agree with most of this. I agree that there wasn=E2=80=99t<br>
overwhelming consensus for either LOT=3Dtrue or LOT=3Dfalse. However, from<=
br>
my perspective there was clearly more strong opposition (what would<br>
usually be deemed a NACK in Bitcoin Core review terminology) from<br>
Bitcoin Core contributors, Lightning developers and other community<br>
members against LOT=3Dtrue than there was for LOT=3Dfalse. Andrew Chow<br>
tried to summarize views from the meeting in this analysis:<br>
<a href=3D"https://gist.github.com/achow101/3e179501290abb7049de198d46894c7=
c" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://gist.github.com/=
achow101/3e179501290abb7049de198d46894c7c</a><br>
<br>
I am also aware of other current and previous Bitcoin Core<br>
contributors and Lightning developers who didn=E2=80=99t attend the meeting=
 in<br>
person who are opposed to LOT=3Dtrue. I don=E2=80=99t want to put them in t=
he<br>
spotlight for no reason but if you go through the conversation logs of<br>
not only the meeting but the weeks of discussion prior to this meeting<br>
you will see their views evaluated on the ##taproot-activation<br>
channel. In addition, on <a href=3D"http://taprootactivation.com" rel=3D"no=
referrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">taprootactivation.com</a> some minin=
g pools<br>
expressed a preference for lot=3Dfalse though I don=E2=80=99t know how stro=
ng<br>
that preference was.<br>
<br>
I am only one voice but it is my current assessment that if we are to<br>
attempt to finalize Taproot activation parameters and propose them to<br>
the community at this time our only option is to propose LOT=3Dfalse.<br>
Any further delay appears to me counterproductive in our collective<br>
aim to get the Taproot soft fork activated as early as possible.<br>
<br>
Obviously others are free to disagree with that assessment and<br>
continue discussions but personally I will be attempting to avoid<br>
those discussions unless prominent new information comes to light or<br>
various specific individuals change their minds.<br>
<br>
Next week we are planning a code review of the Bitcoin Core PR #19573<br>
which was initially delayed because of this LOT discussion. As I=E2=80=99ve=
<br>
said previously that will be loosely following the format of the<br>
Bitcoin Core PR review club and will be lower level and more<br>
technical. That is planned for Tuesday February 23rd at 19:00 UTC on<br>
the IRC channel ##taproot-activation.<br>
<br>
Thanks to the meeting participants (and those who joined the<br>
discussion on the channel prior and post the meeting) for engaging<br>
productively and in good faith.<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Michael Folkson<br>
Email: <a href=3D"mailto:michaelfolkson@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D=
"noreferrer">michaelfolkson@gmail.com</a><br>
Keybase: michaelfolkson<br>
PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank" =
rel=3D"noreferrer">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundati=
on.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>

--00000000000031e59505bbdb1567--