Re: [bitcoin-dev] Yesterday's Taproot activation meeting on lockinontimeout (LOT) - Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces

From: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces@gmail•com>
To: ZmnSCPxj <zmnscpxj@protonmail•com>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
	<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>,
	 ZmnSCPxj <zmnscpxj@protonmail•com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Yesterday's Taproot activation meeting on lockinontimeout (LOT)
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2021 09:20:27 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b5d23fb8-06a8-4dda-bdbb-2247a82fa1a0@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <GCV_t7q-LWZOSrp4_BzurAjmQTuAcyptvOLUsQEpGNhg_l_SPZ3q0PlBxtUKOLfLs4G73ecSdK4SapbbBnRUo2j3yJg2_OTXgcFRzZOau_Q=@protonmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5112 bytes --]

What would be the tradeoffs of a BIP8(false, ∞) option? That would remove some of the concerns of having to coordinate a UASF with an approaching deadline.

Cheers
Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces
⁣

On Feb 19, 2021, 6:55 PM, at 6:55 PM, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>Good morning list,
>
>> It was pointed out to me that this discussion is largely moot as the
>software complexity for Bitcoin Core to ship an
>> option like this is likely not practical/what people would wish to
>see.
>>
>> Bitcoin Core does not have infrastructure to handle switching
>consensus rules with the same datadir - after running with
>> uasf=true for some time, valid blocks will be marked as invalid, and
>additional development would need to occur to
>> enable switching back to uasf=false. This is complex, critical code
>to get right, and the review and testing cycles
>> needed seem to be not worth it.
>
>Without implying anything else, this can be worked around by a user
>maintaining two `datadir`s and running two clients.
>This would have an "external" client running an LOT=X (where X is
>whatever the user prefers) and an "internal" client that is at most
>0.21.0, which will not impose any LOT rules.
>The internal client then uses `connect=` directive to connect locally
>to the external client and connects only to that client, using it as a
>firewall.
>The external client can be run pruned in order to reduce diskspace
>resource usage (the internal client can remain unpruned if that is
>needed by the user, e.g. for LN implementation sthat need to look up
>arbitrary short-channel-ids).
>Bandwidth usage should be same since the internal client only connects
>to the external client and the OS should optimize that case.
>CPU usage is doubled, though.
>
>(the general idea came from gmax, just to be clear, though the below
>use is from me)
>
>Then the user can select LOT=C or LOT=!C (where C is whatever Bitcoin
>Core ultimately ships with) on the external client based on the user
>preferences.
>
>If Taproot is not MASF-activated and LOT=!U is what dominates later
>(where U is whatever the user decided on), the user can decide to just
>destroy the external node and connect the internal node directly to the
>network (optionally upgrading the internal node to LOT=!U) as a way to
>"change their mind in view of the economy".
>The internal node will then follow the dominant chain.
>
>
>Regards,
>ZmnSCPxj
>
>>
>> Instead, the only practical way to ship such an option would be to
>treat it as a separate chain (the same way regtest,
>> testnet, and signet are treated), including its own separate datadir
>and the like.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> On 2/19/21 09:13, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>
>> > (Also in response to ZMN...)
>> > Bitcoin Core has a long-standing policy of not shipping options
>which shoot yourself in the foot. I’d be very disappointed if that
>changed now. People are of course more than welcome to run such
>software themselves, but I anticipate the loud minority on Twitter and
>here aren’t processing enough transactions or throwing enough financial
>weight behind their decision for them to do anything but just switch
>back if they find themselves on a chain with no blocks.
>> > There’s nothing we can (or should) do to prevent people from
>threatening to (and possibly) forking themselves off of bitcoin, but
>that doesn’t mean we should encourage it either. The work Bitcoin Core
>maintainers and developers do is to recommend courses of action which
>they believe have reasonable levels of consensus and are technically
>sound. Luckily, there’s strong historical precedent for people deciding
>to run other software around forks, so misinterpretation is not very
>common (just like there’s strong historical precedent for miners not
>unilaterally deciding forks in the case of Segwit).
>> > Matt
>> >
>> > > On Feb 19, 2021, at 07:08, Adam Back adam@cypherspace•org wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > would dev consensus around releasing LOT=false be considered as
>"developers forcing their views on users"?
>> > >
>> > > given there are clearly people of both views, or for now don't
>care
>> > > but might later, it would minimally be friendly and useful if
>> > > bitcoin-core has a LOT=true option - and that IMO goes some way
>to
>> > > avoid the assumptive control via defaults.
>> >
>> > > Otherwise it could be read as saying "developers on average
>> > > disapprove, but if you, the market disagree, go figure it out for
>> > > yourself" which is not a good message for being defensive and
>avoiding
>> > > mis-interpretation of code repositories or shipped defaults as
>> > > "control".
>> >
>> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>bitcoin-dev mailing list
>bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6259 bytes --]