--- Log opened Sat May 01 00:00:42 2021
00:01 -!- RusAlex [~Chel@unaffiliated/rusalex] has joined ##taproot-activation
01:26 -!- CryptoSi- [SiD@CryptoSiD.DonSiD.net] has joined ##taproot-activation
01:27 -!- CryptoSiD [SiD@CryptoSiD.DonSiD.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
01:27 -!- CryptoSi- is now known as CryptoSiD
02:19 -!- mol_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined ##taproot-activation
02:23 -!- molz_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
02:30 -!- Netsplit *.net <-> *.split quits: bob333, _0x0ff
02:32 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined ##taproot-activation
02:37 -!- Netsplit over, joins: _0x0ff, bob333
02:38 -!- bob333 [~bob@46.28.204.21] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
02:38 -!- bob333 [~bob@46.28.204.21] has joined ##taproot-activation
05:38 -!- commmon [~common@unaffiliated/common] has joined ##taproot-activation
05:41 -!- common [~common@unaffiliated/common] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
06:02 < AaronvanW> My definitions: 1) A boycott isn't about a product, it's about who's providing the product. You might actually want the product, and you would buy the exact same product from someone else if it was available. 2) On a free market, it's about the product itself. You either want the product or not, but you don't care who's selling it. If you don't want a product because you want a different product, that's not a boycott.
06:03 < AaronvanW> ^ aj belcher harding jeremyrubin
06:04 < AaronvanW> If you don't agree with these definitions, that's fine, but hopefully now you understand why I don't consider eg BIP148 a boycott. BIP148ers were happy to accept signaling blocks from Bitmain or anyone else. It wasn't about who was producing the blocks, but about what kind of blocks they were.
06:06 < AaronvanW> (Not do I consider boycott's to be something unethical in the first place, but that's besides the point.)
06:07 < AaronvanW> *Nor
06:20 -!- common [~common@unaffiliated/common] has joined ##taproot-activation
06:23 -!- commmon [~common@unaffiliated/common] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
06:36 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined ##taproot-activation
06:40 -!- mol_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
06:43 -!- provoostenator [~quassel@provoostenator.sprovoost.nl] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
06:44 -!- provoostenator [~quassel@provoostenator.sprovoost.nl] has joined ##taproot-activation
06:48 -!- bob333 [~bob@46.28.204.21] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
06:49 -!- bob333 [~bob@46.28.204.21] has joined ##taproot-activation
07:33 -!- jonatack [jon@gateway/vpn/airvpn/jonatack] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
07:34 -!- jonatack [~jon@88.127.52.83] has joined ##taproot-activation
07:41 -!- jonatack_ [jon@gateway/vpn/airvpn/jonatack] has joined ##taproot-activation
07:41 -!- jonatack_ [jon@gateway/vpn/airvpn/jonatack] has quit [Client Quit]
07:44 -!- jonatack [~jon@88.127.52.83] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
07:52 -!- jonatack [~jon@88.127.52.83] has joined ##taproot-activation
07:57 -!- jonatack [~jon@88.127.52.83] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
07:57 -!- jonatack [jon@gateway/vpn/airvpn/jonatack] has joined ##taproot-activation
08:16 -!- rotten [~rottensox@unaffiliated/rottensox] has joined ##taproot-activation
09:05 -!- jeremyrubin [~jr@024-176-247-182.res.spectrum.com] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
09:26 < robert_spigler> Less than 25 blocks to go.  How do people think it will be affected by the fact that 0.21.1 is not released?
09:29 -!- OP_NOP [OP_NOP@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/opnop/x-41418994] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
09:37 -!- OP_NOP [OP_NOP@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/opnop/x-41418994] has joined ##taproot-activation
09:46 < mol> robert_spigler, 0.21.1 is the same as 0.21.1rc1 but you can ask the devs in #bitcoin-core-dev i guess
09:55 < ghost43> most users don't run the release candidates though; that's kind of their point
09:56 < mol> yep the version is mainly for miners
09:56 < ghost43> but 0.21.1 is tagged at least :) I suspect that's enough for major players
10:01 -!- duringo [add062ba@173.208.98.186] has joined ##taproot-activation
10:38 -!- OP_NOP [OP_NOP@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/opnop/x-41418994] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
11:49 < faketoshi> does 0.21.1rc1 have binaries?
11:49 < faketoshi> aren't usually binaries for release candidates are there?
11:50 < faketoshi> 10.....
11:53 < DeanGuss> https://bitcoincore.org/bin/bitcoin-core-0.21.1/test.rc1/
11:56 < faketoshi> ty
12:45 < CubicEarth> Is there a website that is tracking the signaling?
12:51 < AaronvanW> taproot.watch
12:53 < CubicEarth> ty
12:54 < CubicEarth> So, will the first block signal for taproot? Place your bets
12:54 < CubicEarth> Y
12:55 < AaronvanW> n
12:55 < robert_spigler> n
12:56 < robert_spigler> Probably best if it doesn't.  If it does, miners are likely false signalling
12:56 < robert_spigler> Binaries were literally just released
12:57 -!- OP_NOP [OP_NOP@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/opnop/x-41418994] has joined ##taproot-activation
12:59 < achow101> robert_spigler: the expectation is that miners _are_ false signaling. That's why there's a minimum activation height - so that they have time to actually upgrade
13:00 < robert_spigler> achow101: I thought the assumption was that some might, not that all are
13:00 < AaronvanW> achow101: isn't it mainly so users have time to upgrade?
13:00 < achow101> robert_spigler: "some" generalizes to "all"
13:01 < achow101> it doesn't particularly matter if some are or aren't, all that really matters is that they have upgraded by the min activation height
13:02 < achow101> AaronvanW: it's for both, but more for miners than users imo
13:02 < robert_spigler> Agreed, as long as the economy has upgraded and are enforcing the new rules by the min height
13:02 < AaronvanW> I think it would be bad practice for miners to signal readiness before actually being ready.
13:02 < AaronvanW> though no one can stop them of course.
13:03 < robert_spigler> AaronvanW: there's been some discussion about how to make it more difficult
13:03 < achow101> AaronvanW: it's happened for almost every deployment
13:03 < AaronvanW> achow101: you mean some, right, not all?
13:03 < AaronvanW> (still bad practice either way.)
13:04 < achow101> a not insignificant portion of miners have false signaled for every deployment
13:04 < AaronvanW> achow101: how do you know? (not saying I don't believe you, just wondering how you know that.)
13:04 < achow101> you can observe how signaling drops off after fork activation
13:05 < AaronvanW> after lockin, or after activation?
13:05 < achow101> if they were not false signaling, then during the locked in period, there would not be a dip in the number of blocks signaling, and after activation, no blocks would signal
13:05 < AaronvanW> (or both?)
13:05 < achow101> but you can observe in both csv and segwit (less so for csv) that the lock in period has fewer signaling blocks, and after activation, many blocks still signal
13:06 < achow101> and then there's the chain fork that happened in 2015 due to false signaling
13:06 < AaronvanW> yes that one I'm aware of.
13:07 < robert_spigler> Ah, that makes sense
13:07 < faketoshi> I think first block signals :)
13:08 < achow101> it would not be surprising to me if the first block signaled
13:09 < achow101> although if it does, I would have expected that we saw some early signaling, but we don't
13:09 < robert_spigler> well, we will see soon!
13:09 < OP_NOP> It would be cool to have some on-chain betting scripts about signaling percentage
13:09 < faketoshi> miners have a sense of ceremony like everyone else
13:10 < faketoshi> I'd be super surprised if Wang Chun doesn't stop signalling half way through for no reason
13:10 < faketoshi> He loves to troll
13:11 < faketoshi> 1 more block anyway.
13:12 < AaronvanW> Wang Chun might morse code signal "Never gonna give you up"
13:12 < achow101> next block is the first to signal, so signaling has begun
13:13 < faketoshi> ah
13:13 < robert_spigler> * hoping taproot.watch switches over correctly
13:13 < OP_NOP> State transitions on the difficulty adjustment blocks
13:14 < robert_spigler> forkmonitor.info is back up
13:22 < luke-jr> [19:59:12] <achow101> robert_spigler: the expectation is that miners _are_ false signaling. That's why there's a minimum activation height - so that they have time to actually upgrade <-- …no
13:23 < luke-jr> [20:00:13] <AaronvanW> achow101: isn't it mainly so users have time to upgrade? <-- exactly
13:27 < achow101> no signal
13:28 < OP_NOP> Here we go
13:28 < AaronvanW> what do I win
13:30 < faketoshi> gg. based client it is :P
13:30 < AaronvanW> btc.com, binance pool, 1THash not signaling it looks like
13:31 < robert_spigler> 2 blocks, no signal
13:31 < AaronvanW> 3
13:31 < achow101> 3 now
13:32 < robert_spigler> woops, yep
13:32 < CubicEarth> : /
13:32 < robert_spigler> alright, well, back to work for me
13:32 < OP_NOP> Reach out to your buddies in the mining pools and get them to upgrade ;-)
13:44 -!- rocket_fuel_ [sid2662@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-wxchqqfzdgrxfazm] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
13:44 -!- elichai2 [sid212594@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-ctdbnypmeoivqbxx] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
13:44 -!- jkczyz [sid419941@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-engnmekxundsptfb] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
13:44 -!- felixweis [sid154231@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-hrgkjieufsancvyx] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
13:45 < achow101> anyone have predictions for when we will see the first signaling block?
13:45 -!- jkczyz [sid419941@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-epwwiqqkzattxuur] has joined ##taproot-activation
13:46 -!- rocket_fuel_ [sid2662@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-ixkyastznwqdizja] has joined ##taproot-activation
13:46 -!- elichai2 [sid212594@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-snahryqenoyllldm] has joined ##taproot-activation
13:46 < CubicEarth> achow101: Before the next diff period
13:46 < faketoshi> the next period
13:46 < faketoshi> this one will fly by because difficulty dropped so much and most miners are back online
13:47 -!- felixweis [sid154231@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-hhmrsbbnugoluvvj] has joined ##taproot-activation
13:47 < CubicEarth> And to activate we need 90% in a set period, and not a rolling window?
13:47 < achow101> I think we will start seeing signaling in a couple of hours
13:47 < faketoshi> set period
13:48 < achow101> it's 4 am in China, I think when the pool ops wake up they'll enable their false signaling, or upgrade too
13:48 < mol> wangchun__, are you awake? :D
13:48 < mol> i think wangchun__ is in another country in asia
13:49 < faketoshi> current estimate for difficulty change: +142% lols
13:50 -!- fjahr [sid374480@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-cqausdqkccfuqwew] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
13:50 < faketoshi> f2pool also not signalling
13:50 -!- rocket_fuel_ [sid2662@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-ixkyastznwqdizja] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
13:50 -!- jakesyl [sid56879@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-pmfzsdugzopkxzat] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
13:50 -!- elichai2 [sid212594@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-snahryqenoyllldm] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
13:50 -!- jakesyl [sid56879@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-gozozjszouchhera] has joined ##taproot-activation
13:50 -!- fjahr [sid374480@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-xslldgyngewigvam] has joined ##taproot-activation
13:51 -!- elichai2 [sid212594@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-fdvhrpyfjfoekedf] has joined ##taproot-activation
13:51 -!- rocket_fuel_ [sid2662@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-hgvozpozjqabbadi] has joined ##taproot-activation
13:52 -!- elichai2 [sid212594@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-fdvhrpyfjfoekedf] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
13:54 -!- amiti [sid373138@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-onajnzkmtwetufxh] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
13:54 -!- RubenSomsen [sid301948@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-csbjmecfzclgtpfc] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
13:54 -!- dergoegge [sid453889@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-ahjgehyqddflizbf] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
13:54 -!- hugohn [sid304114@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-hkbqjfllrllpamkd] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
13:54 -!- sugarpuff [sid92283@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-nacbdqrwazgydsoa] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
13:54 -!- wangchun__ [sid444603@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-nrgzqxfenuupzkqt] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
13:54 -!- nioc [sid298274@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-xyhnbbnqmhtotbtp] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
13:54 -!- fanquake [sid369002@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-cmebonrcwdoaxsdc] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
13:54 -!- ajonas [sid385278@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-kvmxywigdwyxskbi] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
13:55 -!- fanquake [sid369002@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-ugwfjatcblmjbjoc] has joined ##taproot-activation
13:55 -!- hugohn [sid304114@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-cwmqkdcoqbpkiouc] has joined ##taproot-activation
13:55 -!- ajonas [sid385278@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-vpynccththdhwzki] has joined ##taproot-activation
13:55 -!- nioc [sid298274@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-qsbyzrvujitdfysd] has joined ##taproot-activation
13:55 -!- jkczyz [sid419941@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-epwwiqqkzattxuur] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
13:55 -!- dergoegge [sid453889@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-czxarejeuzvlyufi] has joined ##taproot-activation
13:55 -!- RubenSomsen [sid301948@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-beewrcsexshgkiui] has joined ##taproot-activation
13:55 -!- amiti [sid373138@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-vulccgszmcouznhh] has joined ##taproot-activation
13:55 -!- wangchun__ [sid444603@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-sjflvqtaamyfsrgu] has joined ##taproot-activation
13:55 -!- schmidty [sid297174@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-voyrxpnvgghfmrer] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
13:55 -!- jakesyl [sid56879@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-gozozjszouchhera] has quit [Max SendQ exceeded]
13:55 -!- jakesyl [sid56879@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-qoehqptgekxbzzbo] has joined ##taproot-activation
13:55 -!- elichai2 [sid212594@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-xuzoksuofurgtuuc] has joined ##taproot-activation
13:56 -!- jkczyz [sid419941@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-zdfjpljnbqsaalvi] has joined ##taproot-activation
13:56 -!- sugarpuff [sid92283@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-wnyxgjbrzcpufzki] has joined ##taproot-activation
13:57 -!- schmidty [sid297174@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-grxxejclczikvdde] has joined ##taproot-activation
14:00 < faketoshi> yeah so I'm pretty sure I'm not gonna be able to move from my laptop for like 6 weeks
14:10 < AaronvanW> out of those who said they supported BIP148, about three quarters said they were for real, one quarter says they were bluffing: https://twitter.com/AaronvanW/status/1388230740513599490
14:11 < AaronvanW> (tiny poll ofc. etc etc)
14:14 < mol> AaronvanW, i haven't seen the majority of those people back on slack, so they might not even be active around this time to see your poll
14:20 < harding> AaronvanW: interesting.  I think it'd be interesting to have a game that modeled some of the dynamics around UASFs that people could play to see if they'd really risk accepting game-points-BTC on a UASF chain that they weren't sure had overwhelming support.
14:22 < harding> In other words, I wonder how many people weren't bluffing about running a UASF node but still wouldn't have started accepting payments to their wallet backed by that node until there was clear evidence they were on the dominant chain.
14:25 < AaronvanW> harding: that's basically what fork futures are imo ;)
14:26 -!- murch [~murch@gateway/tor-sasl/murch] has joined ##taproot-activation
14:33 < mol> https://twitter.com/roasbeef/status/1388602808237056002
14:59 -!- grubles [~user@gateway/tor-sasl/grubles] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
15:00 -!- grubles [~user@gateway/tor-sasl/grubles] has joined ##taproot-activation
15:08 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
15:08 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined ##taproot-activation
15:24 -!- jonatack [jon@gateway/vpn/airvpn/jonatack] has quit [Quit: jonatack]
15:24 -!- jonatack [jon@gateway/vpn/airvpn/jonatack] has joined ##taproot-activation
15:36 < robert_spigler> luke-jr: can you edit bitcointaproot.cc now?
15:36 < robert_spigler> "Unmodified Bitcoin Core includes the code to implement Taproot, but disabled. When Taproot activates, it will not enforce the new rules, and may fall out of consensus."
15:37 < robert_spigler> faketoshi: ^^
15:37 < luke-jr> robert_spigler: how would you phrase it without implying 0.21.1 is legitimate?
15:38 < roasbeef> any bitcoin client is "legitimate" if ppl run it
15:38 < luke-jr> yes, but ST is deceptively calling itself simply "Bitcoin Core 0.21.1"
15:38 < roasbeef> cuz it is
15:39 < luke-jr> no, it doesn't meet the standards required for previous Bitcoin Core releases
15:39 < roasbeef> you're the only one that thinks that
15:39 < luke-jr> they ignored the process
15:39 < robert_spigler> Let's just talk facts. Unmodified Bitcoin Core includes the code to implement Taproot as well. When Taproot activates, it will enforce the rules. (If you want to, discuss Block height method)
15:39 < luke-jr> robert_spigler: it won't tho
15:39 < luke-jr> even 0.21.1 only will in a subset of possible futures
15:40 < robert_spigler> Ok, I guess if you're viewing the UASF as the valid Taproot activation, I see what you're saying
15:41 < robert_spigler> So how about, "If Taproot is activated via the cooperate MASF method, there is no material difference in clients".
15:42 < robert_spigler> "If a UASF is needed, a split may occurr"
15:42 < luke-jr> robert_spigler: well, as I see it, 0.21.0 was the last legitimate Bitcoin Core release; now we have two forks, one with BIP8 and another with BIP9/ST, neither with any more claim than the other to be Bitcoin Core
15:42 < luke-jr> the former admits it is "-based" + Taproot; the latter deceptively calls itself simply Core
15:52 < luke-jr> robert_spigler: and abusing project resources to promote it as such is just further deception
15:54 < robert_spigler> My concern is that currently, it sounds like users downloading 0.21.1 won't enforce Taproot, if it is activated via ST.  But they will
15:54 < robert_spigler> Whether or not 0.21.1 is validly 'Core' or whether or not ST is the correct activation param
15:55 < luke-jr> so what would be a good way to update it?
15:59 < robert_spigler> How about, "Installing 0.21.1 from BitcoinCore.org will enforce Taproot if activated via Speedy Trial, but not if activated via the UASF in November 2022"
16:03 -!- gmaxwell [~procyonid@wikimedia/KatWalsh/x-0001] has joined ##taproot-activation
16:03 < gmaxwell> Why is this channel still here? it should be closed. It's irrelevant.
16:05 < gmaxwell> ah. Guess it's actually dead. OK
16:05 -!- gmaxwell [~procyonid@wikimedia/KatWalsh/x-0001] has left ##taproot-activation []
16:05 < luke-jr> faketoshi: ^ what robert_spigler said beofre the gmax trolling
16:05 < luke-jr> although it's perhaps oversimplified, it's something to start with
16:05 < faketoshi> Seems like a sensible suggestion to me
16:06 < luke-jr> (there's 15 months of MASF that ST ignores too)
16:06 < faketoshi> I'm all for not obviously wrong simplification :)
16:06 < faketoshi> gmaxwell: it's only irrelevant if ST works lol
16:06 < faketoshi> the hell
16:07 < robert_spigler> faketoshi: luke-jr good point about the 15 month MASF. Maybe it could be made better. But thanks guys!
16:08 < luke-jr> maybe: Update 2021-05-01: An alternate client being deceptively called "Bitcoin Core 0.21.1" was just released that will remain in consensus if and only if miners signal within the first 3 months. It is still recommended to run the dedicated Taproot Client release.
16:09 < robert_spigler> How about, "Installing 0.21.1 from BitcoinCore.org will enforce Taproot if activated via Speedy Trial, but not if activated via the extended BIP8 LOT=true process after November 2021"
16:10 -!- harding [quassel@newmail.dtrt.org] has left ##taproot-activation ["http://quassel-irc.org - Chat comfortably. Anywhere."]
16:10 < faketoshi> I'm not sure that's correct.
16:10 < mol> robert_spigler, why does it concern you?
16:11 < faketoshi> Installing 0.21.1 from BitcoinCore.org will enforce Taproot if activated via Speedy Trial, but not if activated via the extended BIP8 LOT=true process if ST fails."
16:11 < faketoshi> Might be more accurate
16:12 < luke-jr> faketoshi: this seems likely to confuse people, and feed the "ST is official" propaganda?
16:12 < faketoshi> Ok
16:12 < luke-jr> most people won't understand BIP8, LOT, ST, etc
16:12 < robert_spigler> mol: because it's currently incorrect, and I don't think users should be told wrong information. Personally, I also don't think users should run the alt-client, and currently it is making it seem like running Core is dangerous
16:13 < luke-jr> robert_spigler: running ST after it ends *is* dangerous
16:13 < mol> robert_spigler, you're probably the 101st person to tell luke this to no avail, i wouldn't waste my time on it
16:13 < luke-jr> or, I guess, beginning in Nov
16:13 < faketoshi> "Installing 0.21.1 from BitcoinCore.org will enforce Taproot if activated via Speedy Trial, but not if activated via the UASF in November 2022"
16:14 < faketoshi> This is fine imo
16:15 < robert_spigler> luke-jr: I want people to run it before the block height activation
16:16 < luke-jr> faketoshi: it implies 0.21.1 is legitimate, uses "Speedy Trial" which isn't something most people know, and is inaccurate since it won't enforce even if activated prior to UASF
16:16 < OP_NOP> luke-jr: It would be great if you could create some test cases in the code to back up all these assertions
16:16 < luke-jr> Update 2021-05-01: An alternate client being called simply "Bitcoin Core 0.21.1" was just released that will remain in consensus if and only if miners signal within the first 3 months. It is still recommended to run the dedicated Taproot Client release.
16:16 < luke-jr> ?
16:16 < faketoshi> You mean if activated via MASF but after ST would fail?
16:17 < luke-jr> OP_NOP: what?
16:17 < luke-jr> faketoshi: yes
16:18 < OP_NOP> "Core 0.21.1 will do such-and-such / not enforce Taproot rules under some conditions / is dangerous" It would be nice to have some code examples / unit tests to see what this looks like
16:19 < luke-jr> OP_NOP: if it has bugs, that's on the ST advocates; these flaws are *as designed*
16:19 < OP_NOP> Then it shouldn't be hard to prove that they're actually bugs
16:20 < ghost43> there is nothing to prove, just read e.g. the activation section of bip341
16:21 < OP_NOP> I see lots of assertions about various things and not a whole lot of simulations
16:21 < ghost43> "I want double-blind tests of parachutes"
16:21 < ghost43> "do they actually do as claimed and save lives?"
16:23 < ghost43> Bitcoin Core has bip9 speedy trial merged, it behaves as the bip341 activation section describes; and there is an uasf client that behaves ~identical for the mentioned period but activation logic continues even after that.
16:27 < OP_NOP> I haven't seen many commitments from major economic players about running a UASF client. If that remains the case, isn't it more dangerous to run UASF than mainline Core?
16:28 < OP_NOP> Maybe the community could have spent half the effort on outreach to miners, exchanges, etc that it did to the activation arguments...
16:29 < ghost43> miners already largely promised to active it. almost 90% of them or so. how much higher do you think "community outreach" could have taken that number?
16:29 < ghost43> see https://taprootactivation.com/
16:30 < OP_NOP> That's an argument in favor of MASF, not UASF
16:30 < luke-jr> OP_NOP: BIP8 is MASF
16:31 < ghost43> I guess with LOT=true it is MASF+UASF
16:32 < OP_NOP> ghost43 ^
16:35 < luke-jr> the UASF ensures the MASF occurs
16:39 -!- OP_NOP [OP_NOP@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/opnop/x-41418994] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
16:44 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
16:44 < robert_spigler> luke-jr: I like that change you posted above
16:44 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has joined ##taproot-activation
17:02 -!- belcher_ [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined ##taproot-activation
17:05 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
17:23 -!- belcher_ is now known as belcher
17:38 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
17:39 -!- molz_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined ##taproot-activation
17:55 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@97-118-239-55.hlrn.qwest.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
17:57 -!- shinobious [shinobious@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/shinobious] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:58 -!- shinobious [shinobious@gateway/vpn/protonvpn/shinobious] has joined ##taproot-activation
19:23 -!- mol_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined ##taproot-activation
19:27 -!- molz_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
19:30 -!- copumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has joined ##taproot-activation
19:48 -!- grubles [~user@gateway/tor-sasl/grubles] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
19:49 -!- grubles [~user@gateway/tor-sasl/grubles] has joined ##taproot-activation
19:56 -!- OP_NOP [OP_NOP@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/opnop/x-41418994] has joined ##taproot-activation
20:01 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
20:02 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has joined ##taproot-activation
20:25 < ghost43> last block signalled!
20:26 < ghost43> "elapsed": 51,
20:26 < ghost43> "count": 1,
20:27 < luke-jr> would be nice if we manage to activate in the first period
20:27 < luke-jr> then I could punt on a solution for Knotsw
20:27 < luke-jr> and just bury it
20:28 < luke-jr> looks like that was slush
20:28 < faketoshi> that looks very unlikely
20:28 < ghost43> it was slushpool btw
20:29 < ghost43> (oh yeah, already said, sorry)
20:30 < achow101> probably just slush is signaling right now
20:30 < achow101> easiest way to check is to connect to each pool's stratum and see what block version number they are returning
20:30 < luke-jr> I don't see a miner option for the signal, so hopefully that means it's just always on
20:31 < achow101> slush's default options stratum is returning the version number with signaling
21:05 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
21:19 -!- mol_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
21:21 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has joined ##taproot-activation
21:34 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined ##taproot-activation
21:53 < pox> love the https://taproot.watch/ website. hat's off to the creators.
21:56 < pox> as the signaling periods expire it illustrates well who's playing along and who's not. a way for pools to score points, or lose points.
22:08 < CubicEarth> It is also showing 1 block as being 1.64% in favor, while 60 blocks not signaling are only totaling 3%
22:09 < CubicEarth> So that's a little bug
22:19 < mol> i'll let him know
22:21 -!- common [~common@unaffiliated/common] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
22:22 -!- common [~common@unaffiliated/common] has joined ##taproot-activation
22:32 < CubicEarth> :)
23:05 -!- faketoshi [~quassel@192.252.212.46] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
23:09 -!- bcman [~quassel@2604:3d08:2f7c:390:448d:7d41:c2b3:f262] has joined ##taproot-activation
--- Log closed Sun May 02 00:00:43 2021