--- Log opened Wed Apr 14 00:00:25 2021
00:16 -!- matthewjablack [~umbrel@ip-45-41-170-185.fibre.fibrestream.ca] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 2.3]
00:24 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined ##taproot-activation
00:32 -!- GV [4a698cdd@pool-74-105-140-221.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net] has joined ##taproot-activation
00:41 -!- GV is now known as GVac
00:57 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
01:04 -!- sdaftuar [~sdaftuar@gateway/tor-sasl/sdaftuar] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
01:06 -!- sdaftuar [~sdaftuar@gateway/tor-sasl/sdaftuar] has joined ##taproot-activation
01:13 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
01:14 -!- shesek [~shesek@164.90.217.137] has joined ##taproot-activation
01:14 -!- shesek [~shesek@164.90.217.137] has quit [Changing host]
01:14 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has joined ##taproot-activation
02:03 -!- sdaftuar_ [~sdaftuar@gateway/tor-sasl/sdaftuar] has joined ##taproot-activation
02:03 -!- sdaftuar [~sdaftuar@gateway/tor-sasl/sdaftuar] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
02:09 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined ##taproot-activation
02:24 -!- GVac [4a698cdd@pool-74-105-140-221.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
03:06 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
03:06 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined ##taproot-activation
03:50 -!- hi [dce91d8b@139.29.233.220.static.exetel.com.au] has joined ##taproot-activation
03:53 -!- hi [dce91d8b@139.29.233.220.static.exetel.com.au] has quit [Client Quit]
03:55 -!- mips_ is now known as mips
04:47 -!- prayank [~andr0irc@2402:8100:206a:5583:dede:5c13:dd72:fb7f] has joined ##taproot-activation
04:49 -!- stanstandard [~standing@172.58.79.39] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
05:00 -!- taxmeifyoucan [4e1e164d@78.30.22.77] has joined ##taproot-activation
05:11 -!- common [~common@unaffiliated/common] has joined ##taproot-activation
05:12 <@michaelfolkson> Summarized yesterday's meeting for the mailing list. Happy to issue corrections if there are any errors. https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-April/018783.html
05:14 -!- commmon [~common@unaffiliated/common] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
05:15 -!- commmon [~common@unaffiliated/common] has joined ##taproot-activation
05:17 -!- common [~common@unaffiliated/common] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
05:17 -!- common [~common@unaffiliated/common] has joined ##taproot-activation
05:20 -!- commmon [~common@unaffiliated/common] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
05:21 -!- taxmeifyoucan [4e1e164d@78.30.22.77] has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
05:28 -!- prayank [~andr0irc@2402:8100:206a:5583:dede:5c13:dd72:fb7f] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
05:29 -!- commmon [~common@unaffiliated/common] has joined ##taproot-activation
05:32 -!- common [~common@unaffiliated/common] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
05:48 -!- AsILayHodling [1808e479@c-24-8-228-121.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined ##taproot-activation
05:48 -!- AsILayHodling [1808e479@c-24-8-228-121.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has quit [Client Quit]
06:00 < queip> michaelfolkson: one could add that we seem to have consensus to name it:  14:05 < faketoshi> name seems to be "Bitcoin Core-based Taproot Client"
06:02  * queip still would say  Bitcoin  Core-based Taproot Forcing Client,  if authors of patch could agree, but current one is ok :)
06:03 -!- prayank [~andr0irc@2402:8100:206a:5583:dede:5c13:dd72:fb7f] has joined ##taproot-activation
06:06 -!- RonaldCrb [5803ef31@49.red-88-3-239.dynamicip.rima-tde.net] has joined ##taproot-activation
06:07 -!- RonaldCrb [5803ef31@49.red-88-3-239.dynamicip.rima-tde.net] has quit [Client Quit]
06:29 -!- belcher_ is now known as belcher
06:33 -!- prayank [~andr0irc@2402:8100:206a:5583:dede:5c13:dd72:fb7f] has quit [Quit: irc thread exit]
06:39 -!- prayank [~Prayank@2402:8100:206a:5583:44aa:d16a:410f:9e96] has joined ##taproot-activation
06:52 -!- mol_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined ##taproot-activation
06:56 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
06:57 -!- duringo [68c891e4@104.200.145.228] has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
06:59 -!- duringo [ad004d54@173.0.77.84] has joined ##taproot-activation
07:07 -!- duringo [ad004d54@173.0.77.84] has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
07:12 -!- OP_NOP_ [OP_NOP@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/opnop/x-41418994] has joined ##taproot-activation
07:16 -!- OP_NOP [OP_NOP@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/opnop/x-41418994] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
07:26 -!- mol_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
07:31 < faketoshi> agreed
07:33 -!- OP_NOP_ [OP_NOP@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/opnop/x-41418994] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
07:33 -!- OP_NOP [OP_NOP@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/opnop/x-41418994] has joined ##taproot-activation
07:37 -!- duringo [ad004d53@173.0.77.83] has joined ##taproot-activation
07:37 -!- OP_NOP [OP_NOP@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/opnop/x-41418994] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
07:38 -!- OP_NOP [OP_NOP@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/opnop/x-41418994] has joined ##taproot-activation
07:38 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined ##taproot-activation
07:49 -!- prayank [~Prayank@2402:8100:206a:5583:44aa:d16a:410f:9e96] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
07:49 -!- cguida [~Adium@2601:282:200:ae00:3dcc:eebe:8776:8907] has joined ##taproot-activation
07:50 < queip> so then, Bitcoin Core-based Taproot Forcing Client?  (BC-BTFC for short)?  Might want to put that in README.md or such
08:07 -!- cguida [~Adium@2601:282:200:ae00:3dcc:eebe:8776:8907] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
08:27 -!- cguida [~Adium@2601:282:200:ae00:3dcc:eebe:8776:8907] has joined ##taproot-activation
08:49 -!- cguida [~Adium@2601:282:200:ae00:3dcc:eebe:8776:8907] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
08:54 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@205.209.28.54] has joined ##taproot-activation
09:03 -!- arturogoosnargh [c263680c@194.99.104.12] has joined ##taproot-activation
09:09 -!- arturogoosnargh [c263680c@194.99.104.12] has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
09:16 -!- duringo [ad004d53@173.0.77.83] has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
09:17 -!- duringo [ad004d53@173.0.77.83] has joined ##taproot-activation
09:21 -!- cguida [~Adium@2601:282:200:ae00:3dcc:eebe:8776:8907] has joined ##taproot-activation
09:24 -!- cguida [~Adium@2601:282:200:ae00:3dcc:eebe:8776:8907] has quit [Client Quit]
09:29 -!- cguida [~Adium@2601:282:200:ae00:3dcc:eebe:8776:8907] has joined ##taproot-activation
09:31 -!- cguida [~Adium@2601:282:200:ae00:3dcc:eebe:8776:8907] has quit [Client Quit]
09:45 -!- leevancleef [8074ecf1@128-116-236-241.static.eolo.it] has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
09:46 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
10:18 -!- cguida [~Adium@2601:282:200:ae00:3dcc:eebe:8776:8907] has joined ##taproot-activation
10:20 -!- cguida [~Adium@2601:282:200:ae00:3dcc:eebe:8776:8907] has quit [Client Quit]
10:21 -!- leevancleef [8074ecf1@128-116-236-241.static.eolo.it] has joined ##taproot-activation
10:25 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined ##taproot-activation
10:34 -!- cec [aedb0499@153.sub-174-219-4.myvzw.com] has joined ##taproot-activation
10:38 -!- cguida [~Adium@2601:282:200:ae00:3dcc:eebe:8776:8907] has joined ##taproot-activation
10:56 -!- rotten [~rottensox@unaffiliated/rottensox] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
10:57 -!- rotten [~rottensox@unaffiliated/rottensox] has joined ##taproot-activation
11:21 -!- cec [aedb0499@153.sub-174-219-4.myvzw.com] has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
11:33 -!- duringo [ad004d53@173.0.77.83] has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
11:35 -!- duringo [ad004d53@173.0.77.83] has joined ##taproot-activation
12:07 -!- duringo [ad004d53@173.0.77.83] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
12:08 -!- stortz [c8b9c69a@unaffiliated/stortz] has joined ##taproot-activation
12:32 -!- stortz [c8b9c69a@unaffiliated/stortz] has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
12:32 -!- mol_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined ##taproot-activation
12:34 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
12:52 -!- duringo [ad004d5b@173.0.77.91] has joined ##taproot-activation
12:59 -!- duringo [ad004d5b@173.0.77.91] has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
13:00 -!- duringo [ad004d5b@173.0.77.91] has joined ##taproot-activation
13:47 -!- mips_ [~mips@gateway/tor-sasl/mips] has joined ##taproot-activation
13:51 -!- mips [~mips@gateway/tor-sasl/mips] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
14:02 -!- mips_ [~mips@gateway/tor-sasl/mips] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
14:02 -!- mips_ [~mips@gateway/tor-sasl/mips] has joined ##taproot-activation
14:15 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined ##taproot-activation
14:17 -!- mol_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
14:52 -!- jonasschnelli [~jonasschn@unaffiliated/jonasschnelli] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
14:52 -!- livestradamus [~quassel@unaffiliated/livestradamus] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
14:54 -!- jonasschnelli [~jonasschn@unaffiliated/jonasschnelli] has joined ##taproot-activation
14:54 -!- livestradamus [~quassel@unaffiliated/livestradamus] has joined ##taproot-activation
14:54 -!- leevancleef [8074ecf1@128-116-236-241.static.eolo.it] has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
15:01 -!- grubles_ [~user@gateway/tor-sasl/grubles] has joined ##taproot-activation
15:01 -!- grubles [~user@gateway/tor-sasl/grubles] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
15:08 < AaronvanW> luke-jr: I know you NACK both, but if you had to choose, do you have a preference between BIP 8 LOT=false (1 year) and the current version of Speedy Trial?
15:13 < AaronvanW> I ask because Speedy Trial was supposed to be a compromise, and now one side isn't happy anyways. So at this point I'm wondering if there's actually anyone who prefers this version of Speedy Trial over BIP 8 LOT=false (1 year).
15:27 < jeremyrubin> AaronvanW: I actually prefer it; I've long advocated for less time as I don't think that the longer timeouts actually confer the benefits people think they do
15:30 < AaronvanW> jeremyrubin: can you elaborate, or point me to some place where you did? I don't think I've heard that argument (or I forgot).
15:31 < jeremyrubin> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1CP7qbnpqA
15:31 < jeremyrubin> when I did the analysis for spork it showed that more time was likely to just be used to procrastinate
15:31 < jeremyrubin> I haven't fully expanded the analysis to versionbits, but I suspect that it's similar
15:32 < jeremyrubin> I also (AFAIK -- please correct me) came up with the idea of delayed activation because I'd rather collect signals from as soon as possible
15:33 < jeremyrubin> ST has both of those concepts, which to me are huge wins over BIP8 LOT=false
15:33 < jeremyrubin> I actually think the minactivationheight is the bigger safety improvement
15:33 < mol> what exactly is BIP8 LOT=false ?
15:33 -!- duringo [ad004d5b@173.0.77.91] has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
15:37 < jeremyrubin> AaronvanW: in fact I think I sent you some logs on this sometime ago
15:40 -!- mips__ [~mips@gateway/tor-sasl/mips] has joined ##taproot-activation
15:41 -!- mips_ [~mips@gateway/tor-sasl/mips] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
15:42 < jeremyrubin> AaronvanW: here's a log https://gist.github.com/JeremyRubin/8ed094993bc95ddd387ad0954e9f1adf
15:43 < jeremyrubin> Essentially the main innovations are with ST is that it's BlueMatt's modern soft fork except it doesn't take a (IMO stupid) amount of time to hit first failure, and it gets rid of the activation-too-soon problem with minactiveheight
15:43 < jeremyrubin> (sorry matt)
15:44 < jeremyrubin> If we hit the first failure, we can regroup see what's what and then launch a UASF or whatever else
15:46 -!- sanketcell [~sanketcel@ec2-100-24-255-95.compute-1.amazonaws.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
15:46 < jeremyrubin> so in other words
15:46 < jeremyrubin> [Monday, July 13, 2020] [10:32:04 AM PDT] <jeremyrubin>	So if we're offering time, we should make sure that time is used well
15:46 < jeremyrubin> I think ST passes this test
15:46 -!- sanket1729 [~sanket172@ec2-100-24-255-95.compute-1.amazonaws.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
15:47 < jeremyrubin> there's nothing that happens in the first 3-6 months after a release that would happen with another 6 months
15:54 < AaronvanW> and the reason you prefer Speedy Trial over LOT=true (1 year) is that you think the "regroup stage" (analyze why it failed) is important?
15:54 < AaronvanW> or don't you prefer Speedy Trial over LOT=true?
15:54 < jeremyrubin> I don't think anyone is proposing LOT=t 1 yr
15:55 < AaronvanW> luke is
15:55 < AaronvanW> eg
15:55 < jeremyrubin> I think it's 1.5 years
15:55 < AaronvanW> I don't think so?
15:56 < jeremyrubin> The code in pull request 9 enforces the activation of taproot by 2022 Nov 10.
15:56 < AaronvanW> signaling time is 1 year, no?
15:57 < AaronvanW> or maybe you mean the ST+LOT=true client.
15:57 < jeremyrubin> https://github.com/BitcoinActivation/bitcoin/pull/9
15:58 < jeremyrubin> AFAIU the ST + LOT is really just adding the minactivationheight param
15:58 < AaronvanW> I'm just talking about the "original plan".
15:58 < jeremyrubin> TBH I don't think ST+LOT is conceptually defined
15:58 < jeremyrubin> but that's another topic
15:59 < jeremyrubin> Ah, well I have some minority views on this. I don't think LOT=true/false matters that much for the arguments given on either side
15:59 < jeremyrubin> e.g. people like LOT=false in case a "problem is found"
15:59 < AaronvanW> also bc of the perception of dev control
15:59 < jeremyrubin> If we thought we might need that, we shouldn't be "fuck around and find out"
16:00 < AaronvanW> oh you said "eg", yeah nvm.
16:00 < jeremyrubin> OTOH, for LOT=true, if we do discover a problem, we'll either hard fork off it or soemthing else
16:01 < jeremyrubin> So I think that basically LOT doesn't do what either party really wants, at least not that well
16:01 < jeremyrubin> LOT=t or f
16:01 < AaronvanW> no my question to you now is: do you prefer Speedy Trial the most, out of these options?
16:01 < jeremyrubin> Yes I do
16:02 < jeremyrubin> ST: we get a lock in, and then we get 3 months of "oh shit it's really happening" for emergencies (as opposed to a few weeks with prior BIP8 designs)
16:02 < AaronvanW> ok, so there's actually someone who likes ST (not just allows it), TIL.
16:02 < jeremyrubin> if it fails, we can do another release in the same calendar year
16:02 < jeremyrubin> (wait i mean relative year)
16:03 < jeremyrubin> Eeeking out a fail-fast mode for upgrades is good
16:03 < jeremyrubin> either it's uncontroversial and it passes
16:03 < jeremyrubin> or it's controversial and it fails
16:03 < jeremyrubin> but litigating signalling for a whole year once it releases is a waste of time for everyone
16:04 < jeremyrubin> and I think politicizing holding out signalling gives miners even more power
16:04 < jeremyrubin> because people try to court miners and appease them
16:04 < jeremyrubin> that's not what signalling is for
16:04 < jeremyrubin> take it or leave it on the upgrade
16:05 < jeremyrubin> Review the spork talk, it goes over this. miners get a benefit by holding out. ST helps neutralize that by reducing the amount of time
16:05 < jeremyrubin> so yes I personally think ST is actually superior, not just a stalemate break
16:05 < AaronvanW> one of BlueMatt's arguments for Modern Soft Fork Activation is that many people (and I guess especially miners) might only start to really review the proposal once it's released. ST does give them less time for that. not a problem, you think?
16:06 < jeremyrubin> In theory, yes. For taproot not a problem. And normalizing being involved in review before we launch upgrades is good
16:06 < jeremyrubin> Once it's merged it's mostly too late
16:06 < jeremyrubin> What if it were *really bad bug*
16:07 < jeremyrubin> And then a miner decides to activate because it's good for miners?
16:07 < jeremyrubin> People should be reviewing the code they're running *before* running it
16:07 < AaronvanW> then the miner probably also wouldn't have objected to it during review
16:08 < jeremyrubin> We can ensure the amount of time for review is appropriate as core process, rather than network process.
16:08 < jeremyrubin> Which we already do
16:08 < jeremyrubin> AaronvanW: not only miners review
16:08 <@aj> jeremyrubin: "AFAIK -- please correct me", i think this is a source for your claim: http://gnusha.org/taproot-activation/2020-07-13.log 14:04 < jeremyrubin> a longer lock-in period. (forget exact term)
16:10 < jeremyrubin> yep, a bit closer to what got implemented is:
16:10 < jeremyrubin> 14:10 < jeremyrubin> I think the three time windows is a concrete improvement to BIP8? start date: release date. soonest enabled date: release + 1 quarter. timeout: release + 1 year?
16:10 < AaronvanW> if we normalize more involvement in review by miners and users, why not LOT=true (1 year)?
16:11 < luke-jr> why give miners any special attention?
16:11 <@aj> AaronvanW: the lot=true params were initially  starttime=+6 months (plenty of time for everyone to be running the new code) timeout=starttime+1year (plenty of time for miners to act, and yet more time for everyone to upgrade before flag day events). ST+LOT moves the starttime back because the initial upgrade is protected by the activation delay
16:12 < harding> I also prefer ST over BIP8(1y, LOT=false) due to it tighly bounding both success and failure outcomes.
16:12 < jeremyrubin> aj: yep! which is perfect to me because it fits the "14:06 < jeremyrubin> I just don't see a reason to not collect signals immediately."
16:13 < jeremyrubin> I guess it's relevent because AaronvanW can verify based on the logs that i am a VERY HAPPY camper with ST
16:13 < harding> jeremyrubin: FWIW, sorry I didn't see or remember you saying that last year when we started the ST discussions a month ago.
16:14 < jeremyrubin> harding: it's all good; I wouldn't have brought it up because I figured it would just cause more turmoil. You/roconnor read the room exceptionally well and got us here
16:14 < luke-jr> AaronvanW: It is better for Core to release nothing at all, than either ST/BIP9 or LOT=False
16:15 < luke-jr> if Core is too dysfunctional to do the right thing here, best to leave it to a community release
16:16  * harding makes the "crazy person" hand gesture
16:19 < mol> :D
16:49 -!- duringo [ad004d5b@173.0.77.91] has joined ##taproot-activation
17:00 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@205.209.28.54] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
17:06 < luke-jr> so testnet, coinflip, ad hominem; what other nonsense backing this attack on Bitcoin?
17:30 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:31 < instagibbs> give it a rest, "things I don't personally like" isn't an attack on bitcoin
17:31 < instagibbs> ad hominem was an attack on you, though you may confuse the two subjects sometimes
17:34 < luke-jr> instagibbs: "community says BIP 8, so let's do anything but - here's this known-flawed alternative!" is
17:34 < luke-jr> instagibbs: and ad hominem against me is being used to back up this insanity
17:36 < jeremyrubin> just pointing out, you're countering an ad hominem (that you're crazy) by calling someone else crazy (this insanity)
17:36 < luke-jr> jeremyrubin: nope, I called ST/BIP9 insanity. that's not a person.
17:36 < instagibbs> there's overwhelming community consensus that I should go eat breakfast, cheers
17:36 < luke-jr> if you're so right, why do you have to constantly misrepresent everything?
17:36 < jeremyrubin> instagibbs: nack
17:36 < jeremyrubin> nack browns and pnackakes
17:37 < instagibbs> jeremyrubin, i schedule breakfast by block height, hashrate going up makes me fat
17:45  * mutualp2p re-roasts the beef "sir, it's been fooour hours"
17:46 < mol> 😆
18:06 -!- shaunapps [shaunsun@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/shaunsun] has joined ##taproot-activation
18:16 -!- mol_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined ##taproot-activation
18:17 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
18:18 -!- molz_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined ##taproot-activation
18:22 -!- mol_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
18:23 -!- molz_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
18:38 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined ##taproot-activation
18:57 -!- nanotube [~nanotube@unaffiliated/nanotube] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
19:12 -!- nanotube [~nanotube@unaffiliated/nanotube] has joined ##taproot-activation
19:14 < BlueMatt> <jeremyrubin> Essentially the main innovations are with ST is that it's BlueMatt's modern soft fork except it doesn't take a (IMO stupid) amount of time to hit first failure, and it gets rid of the activation-too-soon problem with minactiveheight <-- honestly, I think I've largely come around to ST over modern softfork activation's timeline, at least for initial deployment
19:14 < BlueMatt> so, no offense taken
19:14 < BlueMatt> if anything, certainly in the environment we've ended up in today it makes far more sense
19:16 < jeremyrubin> I think the follow on timeline if not locked in can be informed by what we see
19:16 < jeremyrubin> but i don't expect we'll have the chance
19:17 < BlueMatt> right, tend to agree
19:28 -!- commmon [~common@unaffiliated/common] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
19:37 < jeremyrubin> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1104#issuecomment-820011540
19:37 < jeremyrubin> If alt implementors care to Ack
19:38 < jeremyrubin> I actually hadn't previously thought about how nice minactivationheight is for alt clients (although that is of course the intent to give extra time)
19:38 < jeremyrubin> It means it's possible to just skip the activation logic if they want to
19:39 < jeremyrubin> I mean, obviously they should implement the state machine if they can, but I don't know how well resourced the projects are & they may have other priorities
19:41 < harding> jeremyrubin: I was thinking the same thing reading your comment, although I think it only applies to implementations that don't think they're being used by miners.  If you think miners are using your code, you probably want some logic to signal, although I guess you could just hardcode the signal (and remove in a later release).
19:43 < jeremyrubin> yep.
19:43 < jeremyrubin> I would *suspect* most miners are using Core, or a custom derivative
19:43 < jeremyrubin> roasbeef: any miners use BTCD?
19:47 < harding> I haven't done it in a while, but if you call getblocktemplate every few seconds, cache its results to disk, and then compare that to the contents of subsequent blocks, you can usually figure out roughly what code they're running just due to differences in transaction selection.  (The huge simplification I've used is just to compare the total feee of the template vs the actual block, which actually used to work pretty well.)  Amusingly, I
19:47 < harding> think gmaxwell used this method to show that several pools that claimed to be running Bitcoin Unlimited back in the day were actually using Bitcoin Core.
19:47 < jeremyrubin> lol brutal
19:52 < roasbeef> jeremyrubin: a few years ago on the side yeah, have lost contact w/ them though since then (this was in like 2017)
19:53 < jeremyrubin> That's cool! Is there a specific benefit they like?
19:53 < roasbeef> it's more profitible to mine w/ bitcoind though, since our GBT stuff isn't aware of tx packages, etc
19:53 < jeremyrubin> Or just want to support healthy diversity of clients or smth
19:54 < jeremyrubin> roasbeef: there's some talk of making a tx selection solver that lives outside of core that would prolly help you
19:57 -!- shaunapps [shaunsun@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/shaunsun] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
20:02 -!- duringo [ad004d5b@173.0.77.91] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
20:06 -!- grubles_ is now known as grubles
20:07 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined ##taproot-activation
20:19 -!- stortz [c8b9c69a@unaffiliated/stortz] has joined ##taproot-activation
20:25 -!- common [~common@unaffiliated/common] has joined ##taproot-activation
20:26 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
20:38 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
20:40 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined ##taproot-activation
21:33 < mol> haha.. https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin/status/1382547158616789002
21:39 < faketoshi> I really think it is far too poorly recognised that we have community consensus on both taproot and it's activation. So while this release may be enough to get us taproot it would leave a sour taste
21:40 < copumpkin> would anything not leave a sour taste with _someone_ at this point?
21:40 < faketoshi> Ofc not
21:40 < copumpkin> faketoshi: would you be upset if ST succeeded? :)
21:41 < faketoshi> well as I said, I'd be glad we have taproot but would agree with luke-jr that the community has been ignored
21:41 < copumpkin> I'm not a dev, I know plenty of other "community members" who are quite pleased with this
21:42 < copumpkin> so I'm not really sure where this whole "ST-per-that-PR = community is ignored" is coming from
21:42 < faketoshi> No one in here will claim omniscience and the ability to somehow know what the community wants
21:43 < faketoshi> but at the same time we kind of do all the time
21:43 < faketoshi> Seems to me there are three potential scenarios from here - in two of them we need the forced-activation client
21:44 < faketoshi> and in every scenario, given that they are compatible, people are fairly free to choose
21:44 < copumpkin> do you see widespread unrest in online communities about some sort of "devs usurping bitcoin with evil ST PR"? I haven't seen any mention of this being "against the community" except from two people, one of whom is a dev and the other of which may be but is anonymous so we don't know :P
21:45 < copumpkin> yeah, I'm no longer trying to convince you not to do your thing tbc :) just trying to understand this "not what the community wants" thing
21:45 < faketoshi> i can't speak for the community here
21:45 < faketoshi> i'm just a user who went through 2017 and doesn't want to go through all that bullshit again
21:45 < faketoshi> and now i have a client that means i don't have to
21:45 < copumpkin> I don't think any of us do :)
21:46 < copumpkin> there are just wildly different opinions on how that actually happened and how to prevent it from happening again
21:46 < stortz> to be fair, BIP9 has failed once, if it fails again you would have to start questioning some things; you know the definition of insanity, right?
21:47 < faketoshi> the lockins will remain false until the miners improve!
21:47 < copumpkin> :)
21:49 < faketoshi> I'm gonna summarize. Turning BIP9 into BIP8 via an absolute clusterfuck in 2017 means me being extremely pissed off that we are leaving ourselves open to that again.
22:17 -!- stortz [c8b9c69a@unaffiliated/stortz] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
22:19 < mol> ok Samson :D
22:22 < jeremyrubin> faketoshi: to be fair, if luke-jr doesn't want me to ignore him he shouldn't block me on comms platforms
22:22 < jeremyrubin> au contraire, my sentiment is that he wants to block me so that i can't respond to his tweets pointing out that I disagree with his use of "consensus"
22:23 < jeremyrubin> I'm happy to continue paying attention and responding until taproot activates :)
22:24 < mol> how's miners going to activate? devs need to write different code for them?
22:24 < jeremyrubin> to be clear I legitimately don't know what luke-jr blocked me over specifically
22:25 < mol> i wish luke would help litecoin to implement taproot and maybe he can use his bip8 there? :D
22:25 < mol> thank God for altcoin sandboxes so devs can have their playgrounds :D
22:25 < jeremyrubin> this is what signet is for
22:25 < jeremyrubin> :p
22:32 < mol> jeremyrubin, i'd like to see it on testnet
22:33 <@aj> jeremyrubin: run achow101's pr, and mine sufficient blocks in ~9 days time
22:33 <@aj> bah
22:33 <@aj> mol: ^^
22:33 < mol> which pr is this?
22:34 < mol> aj, i tested your pr in regtest but it was boring
22:34 <@aj> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21686
22:34 < mol> ah thanks
22:35 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined ##taproot-activation
22:52 -!- mips__ is now known as mups
22:52 -!- mups is now known as mips
23:08 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
23:21 -!- leevancleef [8074ecf1@128-116-236-241.static.eolo.it] has joined ##taproot-activation
23:50 -!- jeremyrubin [~jr@024-176-247-182.res.spectrum.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
23:59 -!- adiabat_ [~adiabat@63.209.32.102] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
--- Log closed Thu Apr 15 00:00:26 2021