From: Ryan Grant <bitcoin-dev@rgrant•org>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp•com.au>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] March 23rd 2021 Taproot Activation Meeting Notes
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 01:20:15 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMnpzfopMNO=73wqvXpOn9u8X4MwJArqGxODJAS4-9iFiZOd6A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <874kgkkpji.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 11:58 PM Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> The core question always was: what do we do if miners fail to activate?
>
> [...] Speedy Trial takes the approach that "let's pretend we didn't
> *actually* ask [miners]".
What ST is saying is that a strategy of avoiding unnecessary risk is
stronger than a strategy of brinkmanship when brinkmanship wasn't
our only option. Having deescalation in the strategy toolkit makes
Bitcoin stronger.
> It's totally a political approach, to avoid facing the awkward question.
> Since I believe that such prevaricating makes a future crisis less
> predictable, I am forced to conclude that it makes bitcoin less robust.
LOT=true does face the awkward question, but there are downsides:
- in the requirement to drop blocks from apathetic miners (although
as Luke-Jr pointed out in a previous reply on this list they have
no contract under which to raise a complaint); and
- in the risk of a chain split, should gauging economic majority
support - which there is zero intrinsic tooling for - go poorly.
> Personally, I think the compromise position is using LOT=false and
> having those such as Luke and myself continue working on a LOT=true
> branch for future consideration. It's less than optimal, but I
> appreciate that people want Taproot activated more than they want
> the groundwork future upgrades.
Another way of viewing the current situation is that should
brinkmanship be necessary, then better tooling to resolve a situation
that requires brinkmanship will be invaluable. But:
- we do not need to normalize brinkmanship;
- designing brinkmanship tooling well before the next crisis does
not require selecting conveniently completed host features to
strap the tooling onto for testing; and
- it's already the case that a UASF branch can be prepared along
with ST (ie. without requiring LOT=false), although the code is a
bit more complex and the appropriate stopheight a few blocks later.
Although your NACK is well explained, for the reasons above I am
prepared to run code that overrides it.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-07 1:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-24 3:46 Jeremy
2021-03-25 7:02 ` Anthony Towns
2021-03-25 14:30 ` Jeremy
2021-04-06 4:25 ` Rusty Russell
2021-04-07 1:20 ` Ryan Grant [this message]
2021-04-07 5:01 ` Rusty Russell
2021-04-07 13:42 ` Claus Ehrenberg
2021-04-07 15:25 ` eric
2021-04-07 17:13 ` Matt Corallo
2021-04-08 11:11 ` Anthony Towns
2021-03-24 11:23 Michael Folkson
2021-03-24 18:10 ` Jeremy
2021-03-24 19:14 ` Michael Folkson
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='CAMnpzfopMNO=73wqvXpOn9u8X4MwJArqGxODJAS4-9iFiZOd6A@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=bitcoin-dev@rgrant$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp$(echo .)com.au \
/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