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
|
Return-Path: <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C05CAC0001
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 6 Mar 2021 21:55:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with UTF8SMTP id A7B3D827AF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 6 Mar 2021 21:55:20 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, 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_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mattcorallo.com
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with UTF8SMTP id X8OEZTutwQZe
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 6 Mar 2021 21:55:20 +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 smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPS id E2E47827AA
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 6 Mar 2021 21:55:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail.as397444.net (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPSA id 6CC854CD4E9;
Sat, 6 Mar 2021 21:55:18 +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=1615065664; t=1615067718;
bh=RcAig6CJ9w2OfILaU6n6FD9bS18vUOq8YHWmfpegIkk=;
h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From;
b=IYNYTlC3W5Qevwd1LRL9A1Y2vRiiypzFWDSNX4Kf+ySGh0kIT78JeNYVjlzKH578l
xw4yV1JGn8w8Vtde4lLcjhaet4cq4F+UD5fE7G5+J6iu/XVfXRD7cAftua1qS2VP+u
lxu3h6cvmJlFp4envI3xYmmMZNuddfpFNixAE/4naj6tRLqS+ukhK+wfA2FgFbZ1BS
fnDvNzVRpJB8zez879Wt5GEKfPh0BYyDIn0C/EHNFonJbn6clXKRvCs28JPksDbg9d
oQ6xMeBJ5Y/Wm81yENmlBXXPC+tZJe4hnehJRdOBFnuRLztxY+L0aFQ3s/5MuASBGH
spsvAYt9Vyp7A==
Message-ID: <df906a63-6a13-c6f6-86c5-d08ecc84a71d@mattcorallo.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2021 16:55:18 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Michael Folkson <michaelfolkson@gmail.com>, Dave Harding <dave@dtrt.org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <CAFvNmHQKrw=UsUqNfBy2pO-LyfH=7VwO8z1VaHPvimXGReUyBQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFvNmHQKrw=UsUqNfBy2pO-LyfH=7VwO8z1VaHPvimXGReUyBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot activation proposal "Speedy Trial"
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: Sat, 06 Mar 2021 21:55:20 -0000
On 3/6/21 14:56, Michael Folkson wrote:
> Hi Matt
>
> > I'm really unsure that three months is a short enough time window that there wouldn't be a material effort to split
> the network with divergent consensus rules. Instead, a three month window is certainly long enough to organize and make
> a lot of noise around such an effort, given BIP 148 was organized and reached its peak within a similar such window.
>
> I'm not sure either. I can't control anyone other than myself. I think (and Luke has also stated on IRC) that trying a
> UASF (LOT=true) during a "Speedy Trial" deployment would be crazy. I would certainly recommend no one tries that but I
> can't stop anyone. I'll repeat that soft forks have and always will contain some limited chain split risk regardless of
> activation mechanism. I think you are well intentioned but I'm not sure if you've fully grasped that yet. Maybe you have
> and I'm missing something.
>
> > Worse, because the obvious alternative after a three month activation failure is a significant delay prior to
> activation, the vocal UASF minority may be encouraged to pursue such a route to avoid such a delay.
>
> Again I can only speak for myself but I wouldn't support a UASF until this "fail fast" Speedy Trial has completed and
> failed. Luke agrees with that and other people (eg proofofkeags) on the ##uasf IRC channel have also supported this
> "Speedy Trial" proposal. If you want me (or anyone else for that matter) to guarantee there won't be an attempted UASF
> during a Speedy Trial deployment obviously nobody can do that. All I can say is that personally I won't support one.
That's great to hear.
> The parameters for Speedy Trial are being hammered out on IRC as we speak. I'd encourage you to engage with those
> discussions. I'd really like to avoid a scenario where we have broad consensus on the details of Speedy Trial and then
> you come out the woodwork weeks later with either an alternative proposal or a criticism for how the details of Speedy
> Trial were finalized.
>
> I've read your email as you're concerned about a UASF during a Speedy Trial deployment. Other than that I think (?) you
> support it and you are free to join the discussion on IRC if you have particular views on parameters. Personally I don't
> think those parameters should be chosen assuming there will be a UASF during the deployment but you can argue that case
> on IRC if you wish. All proposals you have personally put forward suffer from chain split risk in the face of a
> competing incompatible activation mechanism.
The conversations around the activation of Taproot have far outgrown a single IRC channel, let alone a single live
conversation. Nor is having a discussion with under a few days latency "coming out of the wordwork weeks later".
Frankly, I find this more than a little insulting. Bitcoin's consensus has never been decided in such a manner and I see
no reason to start now.
|
