public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo•com>
To: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian•com.au>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
	<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Straight Flag Day (Height) Taproot Activation
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2021 11:49:57 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <281679eb-860b-c6cb-7e7a-5ae28b60f149@mattcorallo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210303145902.cl4mzg6l7avjboil@erisian.com.au>



On 3/3/21 09:59, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I think it would be worthwhile to also update getblocktemplate so that
> miners signal uptake for something like three or four retarget periods
> prior to activation, without that signalling having any consensus-level
> effect. That should allow miners and businesses to adjust their
> expectations for how much hashpower might not be enforcing taproot rules
> when generating blocks -- potentially allowing miners to switch pools
> to one running an up to date node, pools to reduce the amount of time
> they spend mining on top of unvalidated headers, businesses to increase
> confirmation requirements or prepare for the possibility of an increase
> in invalid-block entries in their logs, etc.

I strongly agree. Ideally such signaling could be placed in the witness nonce, however this may require pool updates to 
ensure pool server software is not assuming the 32-byte-0-nonce in wide use today. It is a worthwhile change in any 
case, as it avoids the need to change pool software for future forks which place commitments in the nonce.

>> 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.
> 
> A couple of days ago I would have disagreed with this; but with Luke
> now strongly pushing against implementing lot=false, I can at least see
> your point...

Right. It may be the case that the minority group threatening to fork off onto a lot=true chain is not large enough to 
give a second thought to. However, I'm not certain that its worth the risk, and, as Chris noted in his post this 
morning, that approach is likely to include more drama.

Matt


  reply	other threads:[~2021-03-03 16:50 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
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 [this message]
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=281679eb-860b-c6cb-7e7a-5ae28b60f149@mattcorallo.com \
    --to=lf-lists@mattcorallo$(echo .)com \
    --cc=aj@erisian$(echo .)com.au \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
    /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