Re: [bitcoin-dev] Yet another Taproot activation logic

From: Carlo Spiller <carlo@spiller•com>
To: Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces <arielluaces@gmail•com>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
	<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Yet another Taproot activation logic
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 09:24:15 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <f1613726-527c-360f-f1c2-c34f8f933626@spiller.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <baad4898-6605-4edc-ad13-0f74289484ae@gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4048 bytes --]

Hi Ariel

Thanks for your reply with the link to the SMA proposal, which I had 
missed previoulsy. It is indeed very similar.

I see that Speedy trial is currently gaining broad support, which is 
good. I think my proposal with the threshold set to 51% instead of 80% 
to change LOT=false to LOT=true is also pretty similar to ST, with the 
key difference being that the next step after a fail of MASF is already 
baked in.

Excited to see how it all plays out.

Best

Carlo

Carlo Spiller
+41 79 368 85 06
www.carlospiller.com

Am 07.03.21 um 22:13 schrieb Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces:
> Hi Carlo
>
> This your proposal is similar to the Simple Majority Activation 
> proposal (SMA). The difference is that your proposal has the final 
> activation threshold set to 80% and SMA has it set to 51% 
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-March/018587.html 
> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-March/018587.html>
>
> The problem with what you're proposing is what do users do if 
> signaling is somewhere between 51% to 79%? Users that want to promote 
> a UASF know that their miner majority can activate Taproot and 
> activate without the 21% to 49% of miners needing to signal (or 
> purposefully stalling). A UASF knows they have majority mining power 
> so there is little risk to them and a big reward (activating Taproot) 
> so they are incentivized to do a UASF.
>
> A UASF with a miner majority can scare everyone else about them being 
> at risk of big reorgs to gain traction and followers.
>
> With the same proposal but the final threshold set to 51% instead of 
> 80% there can't be risk of a UASF because if 51% is not reached they 
> know they don't have enough miner support to keep the chain together.
>
> If support is less than 50% a UASF movement needs to hard fork anyway 
> to change the PoW (for protection) and change addresses to prevent 
> double spends.
>
> I really like the SMA proposal with 51% because it removes the 
> incentive to do a UASF.
>
> Cheers
> Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces
> On Mar 7, 2021, at 6:37 AM, Carlo Spiller via bitcoin-dev 
> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org 
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
>     Hi everybody
>
>     I'm new to this list, but not new to Bitcoin, having skin in the game
>     since 2014. I was there for the scaling war and the drama around SegWit,
>     as a simple user. This time, I run my own full node and follow
>     development. I hope to bring something new to the table.
>
>     Having witnessed the miner's unwillingness to activate SegWit truly
>     makes me concerened for a simple LOT=false. After reading the discussion
>     now for some time and thinking about it myself, I have come to the
>     following proposal.
>
>     Initially deploy with LOT=false and an activation threshold of 95% of
>     miner signaling.
>
>     *IFF* after 6 months Taproot is not activated by MASF, BUT at least 80%
>     of hashpower signaled for the upgrade, LOT gets a lock-in date another 6
>     months later and the threshold for MASF is lowered to 90%.
>
>     If after the initial 6 months of signaling with LOT=false, 80% is not
>     reached, the proposal expires.
>
>     This way, a small percent of hashpower does not get to stall activation,
>     rather, 80% of hashpower can activate LOT=true, and later, 90% can
>     activate Taproot. If a flaw is found in Taproot in the first six months
>     (unlikely anyway), miners simply don't signal and the proposal expires.
>     If miners don't signal at all, only six months are lost, before a new
>     activation logic can be deployed.
>
>     Don't mind this if something similar was already proposed somewhere else.
>
>     Best
>
>     Carlo
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     bitcoin-dev mailing list
>     bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>     https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev  <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5415 bytes --]