--- Log opened Sun Apr 04 00:00:16 2021 01:12 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 01:13 -!- shesek [~shesek@164.90.217.137] has joined ##taproot-activation 01:13 -!- shesek [~shesek@164.90.217.137] has quit [Changing host] 01:13 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has joined ##taproot-activation 03:45 -!- cguida [~Adium@2806:2f0:51c1:5cee:5c13:2cf3:f267:81d1] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 03:52 -!- cguida [~Adium@2806:2f0:51c1:5cee:5c13:2cf3:f267:81d1] has joined ##taproot-activation 03:57 -!- cguida [~Adium@2806:2f0:51c1:5cee:5c13:2cf3:f267:81d1] has quit [Client Quit] 05:21 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 05:33 -!- roconnor [~roconnor@host-184-164-13-101.dyn.295.ca] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 05:37 -!- roconnor [~roconnor@host-192.252-170-125.dyn.295.ca] has joined ##taproot-activation 06:28 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined ##taproot-activation 07:08 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 07:55 -!- copumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds] 07:55 -!- contrapumpkin [~copumpkin@unaffiliated/copumpkin] has joined ##taproot-activation 09:19 -!- contrapumpkin is now known as copumpkin 11:25 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined ##taproot-activation 12:55 -!- belcher_ is now known as belcher 14:34 -!- cguida [~Adium@2607:fb90:282e:481b:10ce:18:cd9c:fbea] has joined ##taproot-activation 14:36 -!- cguida1 [~Adium@2607:fb90:282e:481b:2c25:3bdf:ece7:b6a0] has joined ##taproot-activation 14:39 -!- cguida [~Adium@2607:fb90:282e:481b:10ce:18:cd9c:fbea] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 14:40 < roconnor> [Monday, March 29, 2021] [5:57:36 PM EDT] the current default signet has had taproot always active 14:40 < roconnor> jeremyrubin: What's the deal here? If taproot is always active on signet by default why do we care about activation of taproot on signet? 14:42 -!- cguida1 [~Adium@2607:fb90:282e:481b:2c25:3bdf:ece7:b6a0] has quit [Quit: Leaving.] 14:42 < jeremyrubin> it's for future uses of ST 14:43 < roconnor> I am speechless. 14:43 < jeremyrubin> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:44 < robert_spigler> Are we even planning on using ST in the future as the 'ideal' activation method? I thought that discussion was going to be ongoing, and ST is just what is being used now, because it is the best current option that gets all sides to the table 14:45 < jeremyrubin> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:57 < robert_spigler> Well, I'd like to pre-register a comment that I don't think signet should be a consideration for MTP vs height, since taproot is already activated on signet, and there's no indication that ST will be used in the future (we should continue our search for the ideal activation method) 14:57 < jeremyrubin> please respond on mailing list 14:57 < jeremyrubin> I'm not going to tabulate from IRC 14:58 < robert_spigler> 👍️ 14:59 < jeremyrubin> it's also an impact on testnet FWIW 14:59 < jeremyrubin> which does not have taproot yet 15:01 < roconnor> While true, the "testing of activation" on testnet seems to be very low value. From what I've been told, the last two activations on testnet had all the signaling blocked mined in a single day and they were all mined to the same coinbase output (the same coinbase for both activations IIUC). 15:02 < roconnor> We can activate taproot on testnet by any measure we want really. 15:02 < jeremyrubin> some people desire for testnet to be as close to mainnet as possible 15:02 < jeremyrubin> personally, i think we should shut down testnet entirely 15:02 < jeremyrubin> but not everyone thinks so 15:04 < robert_spigler> " i think we should shut down testnet entirely" -> I believe achow101 said the same thing 15:09 -!- cguida [~Adium@2607:fb90:460:c242:f960:719b:4e49:5bfd] has joined ##taproot-activation 15:09 -!- cguida1 [~Adium@2607:fb90:460:c242:9493:8e46:9520:d33c] has joined ##taproot-activation 15:11 -!- cguida1 [~Adium@2607:fb90:460:c242:9493:8e46:9520:d33c] has quit [Client Quit] 15:14 -!- cguida [~Adium@2607:fb90:460:c242:f960:719b:4e49:5bfd] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 15:17 -!- queip [~queip@unaffiliated/rezurus] has joined ##taproot-activation 15:25 < harding> If there's sentiment that the benefit of proceeding with one method now outweighs the benefit of trying to find the best possible method, we could all commit to letting a fair coin toss decide (e.g. if the least significant bit of block x is 0, we use MTP; if it's 1, we use height). 15:29 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [] 16:11 < luke-jr> harding: moving forward with BIP8(True) is apparently least contentious 16:11 < luke-jr> roconnor: jeremyrubin: it's not about future uses of ST, it's about the hypothetical infinite number of Signets 16:20 < harding> luke-jr: lol 16:46 < roasbeef> jeremyrubin: heh yeh I concur w/ roconnor seems like uncessary baggage given signet is basically just w/e the operator wants 16:46 < roasbeef> harding: yeh srsly, just let RNGesus handle it 16:51 < roasbeef> activating on testnet def has value, testnet has block explorer infra, many wallets have a testnet mode, every sane bitcoin service uses testnet as a staging/testing zone, it's also a proving ground, imo "signet prime" importance seems to be overstated amongst this group 16:52 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 16:53 -!- shesek [~shesek@164.90.217.137] has joined ##taproot-activation 16:53 -!- shesek [~shesek@164.90.217.137] has quit [Changing host] 16:53 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has joined ##taproot-activation 17:00 -!- b10c [~b10c@static.55.136.76.144.clients.your-server.de] has quit [Quit: ZNC 1.8.1 - https://znc.in] 17:45 < harding> I completely agree that signet support isn't that important today, but I think signet support in the future will be much more important, both because of the known problems with testnet and to make it easier to test future protocol improvements in parallel without them interfering with each other (both consensus changes and non-consensus changes). If one of our goals is to choose a mechanism for taproot ST that may be used again, I think 17:45 < harding> it's valuable to consider its impact on future signets (not just the prime signet), as well as the other tradeoffs inherent in each approach. If that's not our goal and we just want to give miners a chance to activate taproot as soon as possible (which was certainly my original objective in supporting ST), I'm personally happy with either MTP or heights, and I'd be willing to join others in putting my effort behind just one of them based on 17:45 < harding> fair random chance. 17:48 < jeremyrubin> echo $(head -n 4096 /dev/urandom | shasum -a 256 | cut -f 1 -d' '):1 | tee PREIMAGE |shasum -a 256 | cut -d ' ' -f 1 17:49 < jeremyrubin> change the '1' to 0 for height, 1 for MTP 17:49 < jeremyrubin> (jk it doesn't matter, we'll xor them together) 17:49 < jeremyrubin> (do it randomly) 17:53 < jeremyrubin> here: echo $(head -n 4096 /dev/urandom | shasum -a 256 | cut -f 1 -d' '):$((0.$RANDOM < 0.5)) | tee PREIMAGE |shasum -a 256 | cut -d ' ' -f 1 17:54 < jeremyrubin> 1: MTP, 0: Height 17:54 < jeremyrubin> should we do that on tuesday? 17:59 < harding> jeremyrubin: that seems to require us to trust whoever runs that command. In that case, we might as well just do: echo -e 'MTP\nheight' | shuf -n1 18:00 < jeremyrubin> no, we all do it an XOR the results together 18:00 < jeremyrubin> https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/239202/how-to-perform-a-fair-coin-toss-experiment-over-phone 18:00 < harding> Ah. Everyone publishes their commitments, then everyone publishes their preimages? 18:00 < jeremyrubin> yep 18:01 < jeremyrubin> then you verify the maps, and xor 18:01 < harding> And we hope nobody has an IRC connection failure in between? 18:01 < jeremyrubin> doesn't really matter, if that many devs collude then we'd have consensus anyways 18:02 < jeremyrubin> just 1 person needs to be disinterested for the outcome to be fair 18:02 < jeremyrubin> if you really care you can do it as a bitcoin transaction with OP_SIZE 18:03 < harding> That semes guaranteed fair, if it's practically coordinatable. I was thinking that we could make the weakening assumption that miners wouldn't burn a valid PoW (worth a few $100k USD) and just agree to use the least significant bit from a block expected to occur a few minutes after the end of the meeting (or whenever). 18:04 < harding> I wasn't worried about collusion; I was worried about somebody innocently dropping out betwen the commitment publication round and the preimage revelation round. 18:08 < jeremyrubin> Ah right. If you want to solve for that; and you want to work in a semi-honest model, then you can do a timelock encryption on all the msgs when first published & if someone doesn't post a valid one with their original commitment, and goes offline, then they are excluded 18:09 < jeremyrubin> that imposes a probabalistic time bound on collecting votes though 18:09 < harding> e.g.: bitcoin-cli getblockhash 123456 | cut -b64 | grep -q '[02468ace]' && echo MTP || echo height 18:11 < jeremyrubin> seems like that should work? 18:11 < jeremyrubin> harding: but are you picking a fixed block hash, or the first one after the meeting ends by time? 18:11 < jeremyrubin> :p 18:11 < harding> haha, I was just typing something to that same effect 18:15 < jeremyrubin> let's have a meeting about it? 18:15 < harding> I'll write a BIP. 18:16 < jeremyrubin> Alternatively, because it's easter, we could just https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydBPm2KRaU 18:16 < jeremyrubin> WWJD DD 18:29 < luke-jr> jeremyrubin: there is no evidence MTP-based ST has any significant community support 18:29 < luke-jr> it would be an abuse of power to merge it into Core rather than BIP8(True) 18:50 -!- fjahr [sid374480@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-catdfbsuppskvnfw] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] 18:52 -!- hebasto [sid449604@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-phljuzhfvgbmptxb] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 18:56 -!- fjahr [sid374480@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-ilpsykelulslvhrl] has joined ##taproot-activation 18:57 -!- hebasto [sid449604@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-qaszoypbxhvkorln] has joined ##taproot-activation 20:21 -!- belcher_ [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined ##taproot-activation 20:23 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 20:54 -!- mips [~mips@gateway/tor-sasl/mips] has joined ##taproot-activation 21:39 -!- otoburb [~otoburb@unaffiliated/otoburb] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds] 21:41 -!- otoburb [~otoburb@unaffiliated/otoburb] has joined ##taproot-activation 23:00 -!- commmon [~common@unaffiliated/common] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 23:57 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 23:59 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has joined ##taproot-activation --- Log closed Mon Apr 05 00:00:16 2021