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
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12163C000D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 18 Feb 2021 11:52:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E66786E15
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 18 Feb 2021 11:52:18 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id XoJsZeJIumAv
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 18 Feb 2021 11:52:15 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-40132.protonmail.ch (mail-40132.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.132])
by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4953D86322
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 18 Feb 2021 11:52:14 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 11:52:05 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail; t=1613649131;
bh=vBHGVwZCN+hasX/UJap8m5uvGLj9e7+UjziG1DlZiCM=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=QbFPe1g100cnebQAls2YjCR7+8wxMtp18h9EAmGLgTZysL+AL8qvEFhJY8dnBOSwX
/LxrJ2nd8kr5NRL++MFPf/v5YIrqNZGbAlUHFdgQRvlhvtv8FAIEDFOEV48Nve6P1+
qEBCOj+hnmDuM9hZ0QKEJSVIgeRna6z6oIH7eOZw=
To: Samson Mow <samson.mow@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <vMdhML4Coj8h6x3LS3kWrMXcINOLKmWOyVzElVr5TZ-nf4FkzDjmQsSaoyYcxL_f74rEI3NUX7JAmXprBSxqOzGi7ZNRhwluA_5f1oqa5oM=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAWeQ5fH+pbEx32uEc4gs_arQC7o+GS+HpVeAZGsKr8i6ewL5w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFvNmHTGkQJnsp7J8q0W3rf2j_djO0J0GNFzrhTpdAvN1GihEA@mail.gmail.com>
<8231ddff-aaa4-4ee0-b25f-40ba9a540aab@gmail.com>
<CAFvNmHSiZhJQ455=RkUVU00ZqagimjGPg_fhC-8oJV=WwM_o=Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAWeQ5fH+pbEx32uEc4gs_arQC7o+GS+HpVeAZGsKr8i6ewL5w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Michael Folkson <michaelfolkson@gmail.com>
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 <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: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 11:52:18 -0000
Good morning all,
> "An activation mechanism is a consensus change like any other change, can=
be contentious like any other change, and we must resolve it like any othe=
r change. Otherwise we risk arriving at the darkest timeline."
>
> Who's we here?
>
> Release both and let the network decide.
A thing that could be done, without mandating either LOT=3Dtrue or LOT=3Dfa=
lse, would be to have a release that requires a `taprootlot=3D1` or `taproo=
tlot=3D0` and refuses to start if the parameter is not set.
This assures everyone that neither choice is being forced on users, and ins=
tead what is being forced on users, is for users to make that choice themse=
lves.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
>
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 3:08 AM Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-=
dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for your response Ariel. It would be useful if you responded to =
specific points I have made in the mailing list post or at least quote thes=
e ephemeral "people" you speak of. I don't know if you're responding to con=
versation on the IRC channel or on social media etc.
> >
> > > The argument comes from a naive assumption that users MUST upgrade to=
the choice that is submitted into code. But in fact this isn't true and so=
me voices in this discussion need to be more humble about what users must o=
r must not run.
> >
> > I personally have never made this assumption. Of course users aren't fo=
rced to run any particular software version, quite the opposite. Defaults s=
et in software versions matter though as many users won't change them.
> >
> > > Does no one realize that it is a very possible outcome that if LOT=3D=
true is released there may be only a handful of people that begin running i=
t while everyone else delays their upgrade (with the very good reason of no=
t getting involved in politics) and a year later those handful of people ju=
st become stuck at the moment of MUST_SIGNAL, unable to mine new blocks?
> >
> > It is a possible outcome but the likely outcome is that miners activate=
Taproot before LOT is even relevant. I think it is prudent to prepare for =
the unlikely but possible outcome that miners fail to activate and hence ha=
ve this discussion now rather than be unprepared for that eventuality. If L=
OT is set to false in a software release there is the possibility (T2 in=
=C2=A0https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February=
/018380.html) of individuals or a proportion of the community changing LOT =
to true. In that sense setting LOT=3Dfalse in a software release appears to=
be no more safe than LOT=3Dtrue.
> >
> > > The result: a wasted year of waiting and a minority of people who did=
n't want to be lenient with miners by default.
> >
> > There is the (unlikely but possible) possibility of a wasted year if LO=
T is set to false and miners fail to activate. I'm not convinced by this pe=
rception that LOT=3Dtrue is antagonistic to miners. I actually think it off=
ers them clarity on what will happen over a year time period and removes th=
e need for coordinated or uncoordinated community UASF efforts on top of LO=
T=3Dfalse.
> >
> > > An activation mechanism is a consensus change like any other change, =
can be contentious like any other change, and we must resolve it like any o=
ther change. Otherwise we risk arriving at the darkest timeline.
> >
> > I don't know what you are recommending here to avoid "this darkest time=
line". Open discussions have occurred and are continuing and in my mailing =
list post that you responded to **I recommended we propose LOT=3Dfalse be s=
et in protocol implementations such as Bitcoin Core**. I do think this apoc=
alyptic language isn't particularly helpful. In an open consensus system di=
scussion is healthy, we should prepare for bad or worst case scenarios in a=
dvance and doing so is not antagonistic or destructive. Mining pools=C2=
=A0have pledged support for Taproot but we don't build secure systems based=
on pledges of support, we build them to minimize trust in any human actors=
. We can be grateful that people like Alejandro have worked hard on taproot=
activation.com (and this effort has informed the discussion) without taking=
pledges of support as cast iron guarantees.
> >
> > TL;DR It sounds like you agree with my recommendation to set LOT=3Dfals=
e in protocol implementations in my email :)
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 5:43 AM Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces@gmail=
.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Something what strikes me about the conversation is the emotion surro=
unding the letters UASF.
> > > It appears as if people discuss UASF as if it's a massive tidal wave =
of support that is inevitable, like we saw during segwit activation. But th=
e actual definition is "any activation that is not a MASF".
> > > A UASF can consist of a single node, ten nodes, a thousand, half of a=
ll nodes, all business' nodes, or even all the non mining nodes. On another=
dimension it can have zero mining support, 51% support, 49% support, or an=
y support right up against a miner activation threshold.
> > > Hell a UASF doesn't even need code or even a single node running as l=
ong as it exists as a possibility in people's minds.
> > > The only thing a UASF doesn't have is miner support above an agreed a=
ctivation threshold (some number above %51).
> > > I say this because it strikes me when people say that they are for LO=
T=3Dtrue with the logic that since a UASF is guaranteed to happen then it's=
better to just make it default from the beginning. Words like coordination=
and safety are sometimes sprinkled into the argument.
> > > The argument comes from a naive assumption that users MUST upgrade to=
the choice that is submitted into code. But in fact this isn't true and so=
me voices in this discussion need to be more humble about what users must o=
r must not run.
> > > Does no one realize that it is a very possible outcome that if LOT=3D=
true is released there may be only a handful of people that begin running i=
t while everyone else delays their upgrade (with the very good reason of no=
t getting involved in politics) and a year later those handful of people ju=
st become stuck at the moment of MUST_SIGNAL, unable to mine new blocks? Or=
attracting a minority of miners, activating, and forking off into a minori=
ty fork. Then a lot=3Dfalse could be started that ends up activating the fe=
ature now that the stubborn option has ran its course.
> > > The result: a wasted year of waiting and a minority of people who did=
n't want to be lenient with miners by default. The chains could be called B=
itcoinLenient and BitcoinStubborn.
> > > How is that strictly safer or more coordinated?
> > > I may be in the minority, or maybe a silent majority, or maybe a majo=
rity that just hasn't considered this as a choice but honestly if there is =
contention about whether we're going to be stubborn or lenient with miners =
for Taproot and in the future then I prefer to just not activate anything a=
t all. I'm fine for calling bitcoin ossified, accepting that segwit is Bitc=
oin's last network upgrade. Taproot is amazing but no new feature is worth =
a network split down the middle.
> > > Maybe in 10 or 20 years, when other blockchains implement features li=
ke Taproot and many more, we will become envious enough to put aside our di=
fferences on how to behave towards miners and finally activate Taproot.
> > > An activation mechanism is a consensus change like any other change, =
can be contentious like any other change, and we must resolve it like any o=
ther change. Otherwise we risk arriving at the darkest timeline.
> > > Cheers
> > > Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces
> > > On Feb 17, 2021, at 7:05 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 appeare=
d
> > > > 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-Februa=
ry/018380.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 for=
m I
> > > > could. David Harding responded with an additional argument for
> > > > LOT=3Dfalse (F7) here:
> > > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-Februa=
ry/018415.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 f=
or
> > > > 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 the livestream:
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dvpl5q1ovMLM)
> > > >
> > > > A summary of the meeting was provided by Luke Dashjr on Mastodon he=
re:
> > > > 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. Howeve=
r, from
> > > > 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 C=
how
> > > > 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=
meeting in
> > > > person who are opposed to LOT=3Dtrue. I don=E2=80=99t want to put t=
hem 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 meet=
ing
> > > > 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 strong
> > > > 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=3Dfals=
e.
> > > > 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 o=
r
> > > > various specific individuals change their minds.
> > > >
> > > > Next week we are planning a code review of the Bitcoin Core PR #195=
73
> > > > which was initially delayed because of this LOT discussion. As I=
=E2=80=99ve
> > > > 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 o=
n
> > > > 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:=C2=A0michaelfolkson@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
|