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 > > > 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 > > 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 >