From: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo•com>
To: Michael Folkson <michaelfolkson@gmail•com>,
Dave Harding <dave@dtrt•org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot activation proposal "Speedy Trial"
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2021 16:55:18 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <df906a63-6a13-c6f6-86c5-d08ecc84a71d@mattcorallo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFvNmHQKrw=UsUqNfBy2pO-LyfH=7VwO8z1VaHPvimXGReUyBQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 3/6/21 14:56, Michael Folkson wrote:
> Hi Matt
>
> > I'm really unsure that three months is a short enough time window that there wouldn't be a material effort to split
> the network with divergent consensus rules. Instead, a three month window is certainly long enough to organize and make
> a lot of noise around such an effort, given BIP 148 was organized and reached its peak within a similar such window.
>
> I'm not sure either. I can't control anyone other than myself. I think (and Luke has also stated on IRC) that trying a
> UASF (LOT=true) during a "Speedy Trial" deployment would be crazy. I would certainly recommend no one tries that but I
> can't stop anyone. I'll repeat that soft forks have and always will contain some limited chain split risk regardless of
> activation mechanism. I think you are well intentioned but I'm not sure if you've fully grasped that yet. Maybe you have
> and I'm missing something.
>
> > Worse, because the obvious alternative after a three month activation failure is a significant delay prior to
> activation, the vocal UASF minority may be encouraged to pursue such a route to avoid such a delay.
>
> Again I can only speak for myself but I wouldn't support a UASF until this "fail fast" Speedy Trial has completed and
> failed. Luke agrees with that and other people (eg proofofkeags) on the ##uasf IRC channel have also supported this
> "Speedy Trial" proposal. If you want me (or anyone else for that matter) to guarantee there won't be an attempted UASF
> during a Speedy Trial deployment obviously nobody can do that. All I can say is that personally I won't support one.
That's great to hear.
> The parameters for Speedy Trial are being hammered out on IRC as we speak. I'd encourage you to engage with those
> discussions. I'd really like to avoid a scenario where we have broad consensus on the details of Speedy Trial and then
> you come out the woodwork weeks later with either an alternative proposal or a criticism for how the details of Speedy
> Trial were finalized.
>
> I've read your email as you're concerned about a UASF during a Speedy Trial deployment. Other than that I think (?) you
> support it and you are free to join the discussion on IRC if you have particular views on parameters. Personally I don't
> think those parameters should be chosen assuming there will be a UASF during the deployment but you can argue that case
> on IRC if you wish. All proposals you have personally put forward suffer from chain split risk in the face of a
> competing incompatible activation mechanism.
The conversations around the activation of Taproot have far outgrown a single IRC channel, let alone a single live
conversation. Nor is having a discussion with under a few days latency "coming out of the wordwork weeks later".
Frankly, I find this more than a little insulting. Bitcoin's consensus has never been decided in such a manner and I see
no reason to start now.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-06 21:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-06 19:56 Michael Folkson
2021-03-06 21:55 ` Matt Corallo [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2021-03-15 14:06 Michael Folkson
2021-03-06 3:43 David A. Harding
2021-03-06 4:44 ` Jeremy
2021-03-06 6:04 ` Andrew Chow
2021-03-06 14:44 ` Russell O'Connor
2021-03-15 2:51 ` Luke Dashjr
2021-03-15 3:14 ` Andrew Chow
2021-03-06 9:29 ` Anthony Towns
2021-03-06 10:26 ` Eric Voskuil
2021-03-06 18:11 ` Matt Corallo
2021-03-06 20:23 ` David A. Harding
2021-03-06 21:48 ` Matt Corallo
2021-03-06 20:44 ` Ariel Luaces
2021-03-06 20:55 ` Keagan McClelland
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=df906a63-6a13-c6f6-86c5-d08ecc84a71d@mattcorallo.com \
--to=lf-lists@mattcorallo$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=dave@dtrt$(echo .)org \
--cc=michaelfolkson@gmail$(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