Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CF68C0001 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 13:54:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36C43605C1 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 13:54:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.28 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.28 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=q32-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y6IUQQRNMrP0 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 13:54:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-pg1-f170.google.com (mail-pg1-f170.google.com [209.85.215.170]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C11B605BA for ; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 13:54:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg1-f170.google.com with SMTP id h4so11582457pgf.13 for ; Mon, 01 Mar 2021 05:54:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=q32-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ANxlE/JD0e1WPVOb82JH6cdmtwB8MCWdJXp+qUhS6hM=; b=s6tc9MVRev2CzmPMAveBG4/2KCHiRfmwOjrtrIPSPorXudbhDSxgw0iURw6FD9W99l hIYaUMgK6uPxw91aFRYVEaahYCPdukD30vaqJzNwwAi7se/NI06muxVCaCXKwqoFp0Uw noi2dJKnju5vF39pHZGCXyY1zi06LO9vD9A5jMdiOMnudRo5NjnB9IRwXnI/mRyZ+Ybw TjDN1+desZ7D8Grd55uPbZJekibutJZ5tPIbKtf9y9+zhw8VhYcd4PA+JOukVCZZL566 PhDhhB91p1RIBG2DiH2AUPWzznHANe3Vwls0PxEa9nlEO/aXhPDxD24sKBvbrLKIYk84 EQTA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ANxlE/JD0e1WPVOb82JH6cdmtwB8MCWdJXp+qUhS6hM=; b=FYdZOanF2IyqcmlrqtVobW0C8N6qnKtSm4O0qfn5pWBLNRHYd5i+f9SDBRkEKrNpQe oMZFBZN6PSJSyA7REJNE9tHvVKdiLKyER8+NzVUySifXHwT1TD1Bx+cvnAe5R0SoXd84 Te5gSzKjh5K0bxLkyKqFlJmUka4IqiOZoselswVY25OooWxY3jxShafa+ZtrLJ7iTTG/ WsvDcYV1rmuBOTv/dej90WB8xGm/3HP0xYIlxHRbGDtmYXxb92ZZZzm1AtRwdJV14mOC JKUo0bCoWFgDLUmaEelIykNvZ5IUhfZZ87vheTLslzVvYyb3N/SYoYvqDMANR1CYsOvm DCZQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530PGImzFQm64k5WJCq1GlSNKZq0X538r1ab0c4I0LwF86fxKUG5 Iiae/vtSQk7A7TDHuXGa4a0bodmrI0Ft+Y0TgfmK9WI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxLHkAOp/xqBzLhAQpXLjg3UoGRTGLblcTDKvD80mEYfESm9yrSf5K1QvqM0gL/M1qsJ3rqVLyEqR9STco1orI= X-Received: by 2002:a62:1650:0:b029:1ee:26a:4958 with SMTP id 77-20020a6216500000b02901ee026a4958mr15330404pfw.49.1614606886429; Mon, 01 Mar 2021 05:54:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210222101632.j5udrgtj2aj5bw6q@erisian.com.au> <7B0D8EE4-19D9-4686-906C-F762F29E74D4@mattcorallo.com> In-Reply-To: From: Erik Aronesty Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2021 08:54:34 -0500 Message-ID: To: Ariel Luaces , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 01 Mar 2021 14:00:47 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Yesterday's Taproot activation meeting on lockinontimeout (LOT) X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2021 13:54:48 -0000 > Today users should start cooperating again to continue using the > optimal strategy. the "gradual" method of reducing the % of miners required for lock-in as time goes on seems to encode this optimal strategy. On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 6:43 AM Ariel Luaces via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 12:09 PM Keagan McClelland via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > > > If social consensus is what drives technical consensus and not the othe= r way around it seems as if there cannot exist a valid (rational?) reason t= o oppose Taproot itself, and then by extension with the arguments laid out = above, LOT=3Dtrue seems to be the logical conclusion of all of this, even i= f Core ships LOT=3Dfalse at the outset. > > > > Where am I wrong here? > > > > Keagan > > > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 7:11 PM Jeremy via bitcoin-dev wrote: > >> > >> Personally, I think with either plan the ultimate risk of forking is l= ow given probability to activate before timeout, so we should just pick som= ething and move on, accepting that we aren't setting a precedent by which a= ll future forks should abide. Given my understanding of the tradeoffs, I be= lieve that the safest choice is LOT=3Dtrue, but I wouldn't move to hold bac= k a plan of LOT=3Dfalse (but would probably take mitigative steps on commun= ity advocacy if it looks like there is non majority but non negligible LOT= =3Dtrue uptake). > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Jeremy > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> bitcoin-dev mailing list > >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > To favor LOT=3Dtrue because it seems like the inevitable result is like > playing the prisoner's dilemma and never cooperating instead of using > the most optimal strategy which is tit-for-tat (cooperating at first > and then cheating once for every time your counterparty cheats). > > During segwit users started by cooperating (BIP9, or "LOT=3Dfalse"), > then a minority of > miners didn't cooperate (small veto but remember the majority of > miners cooperated), then users stopped cooperating in response (UASF), > then miners > reverted to cooperating (MASF while intolerant miners forked off). > Today users should start cooperating again to continue using the > optimal strategy. > > Cheers > Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev