From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org,
Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo•com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Straight Flag Day (Height) Taproot Activation
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2021 17:20:05 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <202102281720.07392.luke@dashjr.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c35e1761-43ca-e157-6a5c-72d27f2c6c6e@mattcorallo.com>
On Sunday 28 February 2021 16:45:22 Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> many individuals are committing themselves to running
> incompatible consensus rules.
Yet that is exactly what you propose herein...
> Given this, it seems one way to keep the network in consensus would be to
> simply activate taproot through a traditional, no-frills, flag-day (or
> -height) activation with a flag day of roughly August, 2022.
Concept NACK. This still has the same problems BIP149 would have had, as I
just reminded in my last email to this ML:
1) Such a chain does not indicate activation at all, leaving it unresolved and
debatable whether activation has occurred or not.
2) As a result, it is also impractical to intentionally reject the softfork
should anyone decide to do so.
Signalling is important to activation.
> 2) The high node-level-adoption bar is one of the most critical goals, and
> the one most currently in jeopardy in a BIP 8 approach.
It is only jeopardized if people continue to push for a LOT=False deployment
(or this new proposal of yours).
BIP 8 itself, with LOT=True, does not create such a risk at all.
> Users demanding alternative consensus rules (or, worse, configuration flags
> to change consensus rules on individual nodes with an expectation of use)
> makes this very complicated in the context of BIP 8.
Alternative consensus rules is exactly what you are proposing here.
More alternative rules to choose from just increase the risks. Two options is
annoying, but adding a third for no reason is just absurd.
Luke
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-28 17:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-02-28 16:45 Matt Corallo
2021-02-28 17:20 ` Luke Dashjr [this message]
2021-02-28 17:29 ` Matt Corallo
2021-02-28 19:43 ` Jeremy
2021-02-28 19:51 ` Matt Corallo
2021-02-28 20:02 ` Jeremy
2021-02-28 20:19 ` Eric Voskuil
2021-02-28 20:25 ` Matt Corallo
2021-02-28 20:38 ` Eric Voskuil
2021-02-28 20:20 ` Matt Corallo
2021-03-03 14:59 ` Anthony Towns
2021-03-03 16:49 ` Matt Corallo
2021-03-06 11:33 ` Anthony Towns
2021-03-08 12:51 ` Jorge Timón
2021-03-08 14:13 ` eric
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=202102281720.07392.luke@dashjr.org \
--to=luke@dashjr$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=lf-lists@mattcorallo$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox