--- Log opened Mon Apr 19 00:00:30 2021
00:04 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined ##taproot-activation
00:34 -!- andrewtoth_ [~andrewtot@gateway/tor-sasl/andrewtoth] has joined ##taproot-activation
00:36 -!- _andrewtoth_ [~andrewtot@gateway/tor-sasl/andrewtoth] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
00:37 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
00:56 -!- shesek [~shesek@164.90.217.137] has joined ##taproot-activation
00:56 -!- shesek [~shesek@164.90.217.137] has quit [Changing host]
00:56 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has joined ##taproot-activation
01:09 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined ##taproot-activation
01:14 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit []
01:20 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined ##taproot-activation
02:17 -!- sanket1729 [~sanket172@ec2-100-24-255-95.compute-1.amazonaws.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
02:19 -!- sanketcell [~sanketcel@ec2-100-24-255-95.compute-1.amazonaws.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
02:41 -!- qubenix [~qubenix@66.172.11.228] has quit [Quit: quit]
02:44 -!- qubenix [~qubenix@66.172.11.228] has joined ##taproot-activation
03:08 -!- qubenix [~qubenix@66.172.11.228] has quit [Quit: quit]
03:37 -!- qubenix [~qubenix@66.172.11.228] has joined ##taproot-activation
03:50 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has quit [Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net]
03:51 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has joined ##taproot-activation
04:03 -!- kabaum [~kabaum@h-13-35.A163.priv.bahnhof.se] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
04:15 -!- kabaum [~kabaum@h-13-35.A163.priv.bahnhof.se] has joined ##taproot-activation
04:15 <@michaelfolkson> jeremyrubin: Not muted for me
04:16 <@michaelfolkson> [01:23:31]  <jeremyrubin> luke-jr: am i muted here?
04:16 <@michaelfolkson> [01:25:02]  <jeremyrubin> (by here I mean IRC)
04:16 <@michaelfolkson> [01:30:48]  <jeremyrubin> err i guess i mean (as someone pointed out) do you have me on /ignore -- just checking if I should be relaying any questions through another participant here
04:16 <@michaelfolkson> [01:31:02]  <jeremyrubin> (sorry for the line noise to others in this channel)
04:21 <@michaelfolkson> jeremyrubin: On the BIP editor question I would guess the complications would be which individual(s) do you give merge access to (if there are multiple people requesting merge access) and checking whether the BIP community is happy with it.
04:22 <@michaelfolkson> Again I suspect there is no problem adding another BIP editor but maybe shouldn't happen overnight
04:24 <@michaelfolkson> Especially during an (arguably) disputed soft fork BIP merge
06:40 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has quit [Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net]
06:42 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has joined ##taproot-activation
06:55 -!- OP_NOP [OP_NOP@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/opnop/x-41418994] has joined ##taproot-activation
06:59 -!- andrewtoth_ [~andrewtot@gateway/tor-sasl/andrewtoth] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
07:12 -!- yanmaani [~yanmaani@gateway/tor-sasl/yanmaani] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
07:12 <@michaelfolkson> Article from AaronvanW on Taproot activation: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/there-are-now-two-taproot-activation-clients-heres-why
07:13 -!- yanmaani [~yanmaani@gateway/tor-sasl/yanmaani] has joined ##taproot-activation
07:36 -!- OP_NOP [OP_NOP@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/opnop/x-41418994] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
08:18 -!- faketoshi [~quassel@static-198-54-131-107.cust.tzulo.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
08:19 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@205.209.28.54] has joined ##taproot-activation
08:19 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
08:20 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has joined ##taproot-activation
08:22 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has quit [Excess Flood]
08:23 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has joined ##taproot-activation
08:23 -!- Matviy [45b56c08@c-69-181-108-8.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined ##taproot-activation
08:25 -!- andrewtoth_ [~andrewtot@gateway/tor-sasl/andrewtoth] has joined ##taproot-activation
08:28 -!- duringo [ad004d11@173.0.77.17] has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
08:28 -!- bcman [~quassel@static-198-54-131-171.cust.tzulo.com] has joined ##taproot-activation
08:33 -!- bcman [~quassel@static-198-54-131-171.cust.tzulo.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
08:56 -!- cguida [~Adium@205.209.28.54] has joined ##taproot-activation
08:57 -!- cguida [~Adium@205.209.28.54] has quit [Client Quit]
09:00 -!- cguida [~Adium@205.209.28.54] has joined ##taproot-activation
09:08 -!- molz_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined ##taproot-activation
09:11 -!- mol_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
09:20 -!- andrewtoth_ [~andrewtot@gateway/tor-sasl/andrewtoth] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
09:20 -!- andrewtoth_ [~andrewtot@gateway/tor-sasl/andrewtoth] has joined ##taproot-activation
09:33 -!- wiscojabroni [5d2c50a9@93-44-80-169.ip96.fastwebnet.it] has joined ##taproot-activation
09:34 -!- wiscojabroni [5d2c50a9@93-44-80-169.ip96.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Client Quit]
09:35 -!- wiscojabroni [5d2c50a9@93-44-80-169.ip96.fastwebnet.it] has joined ##taproot-activation
09:35 -!- wiscojabroni [5d2c50a9@93-44-80-169.ip96.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Client Quit]
09:45 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined ##taproot-activation
09:47 -!- Matviy [45b56c08@c-69-181-108-8.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
09:48 -!- molz_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
10:06 -!- bcman [~quassel@static-198-54-131-171.cust.tzulo.com] has joined ##taproot-activation
10:06 -!- cec [aedb08ff@255.sub-174-219-8.myvzw.com] has joined ##taproot-activation
10:09 -!- cec [aedb08ff@255.sub-174-219-8.myvzw.com] has quit [Client Quit]
10:13 -!- bcman [~quassel@static-198-54-131-171.cust.tzulo.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
10:15 -!- gevs [~greg@194.red-81-33-44.dynamicip.rima-tde.net] has joined ##taproot-activation
11:26 -!- mol_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined ##taproot-activation
11:29 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
11:48 -!- bcman [~quassel@static-198-54-131-171.cust.tzulo.com] has joined ##taproot-activation
12:10 -!- wiscojabroni [5d2c50a9@93-44-80-169.ip96.fastwebnet.it] has joined ##taproot-activation
12:11 -!- wiscojabroni [5d2c50a9@93-44-80-169.ip96.fastwebnet.it] has quit [Client Quit]
12:31 -!- cguida [~Adium@205.209.28.54] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
12:43 -!- bcman is now known as faketoshi
12:49 <@michaelfolkson> Was asked a question on the network split risk with two competing clients. As always happy to receive suggested edits or alternative answers https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/105553/is-there-network-split-risk-for-taproot-activation-with-two-releases-bitcoin-co/
13:03 < jeremyrubin> not entirely accurate
13:04 <@michaelfolkson> Do elaborate
13:05 < jeremyrubin> e.g., suppose on Nov 15th, 2021 long after the ST deployment of Taproot, miners decide to signal the to-core meaningless bit flag. Or more simply, suppose after August 2021, pools which were manually configured to signal fail to turn it off. Then UASF clients will activate while the rest of the network does not
13:06 < jeremyrubin> Given the 90% threshold required, this means that if you had, say, 89% signalling by a manually configured pool flag forget to turn it off, then 11% are able to cause a to-core false activation
13:06 < jeremyrubin> Then, a Taproot-active invalid spend can be created and the (in this scenario) maj of the network will build on it
13:07 < jeremyrubin> But the UASF clients will diverge and not build on such a spend
13:07 < jeremyrubin> Therefore, the dangerous scenario comes when there's almost consensus, a small group can easily engineer a split
13:08 < jeremyrubin> Therefore it's proper to note that a network split can happen any after ST fails
13:08 <@michaelfolkson> You could flip that (excuse the pun) and say that is a risk Core will have to deal with. It could release a compatible activation mechanism with "Bitcoin Taproot" after Speedy Trial has failed. If it doesn't Core is choosing to take that risk
13:09 < jeremyrubin> This would be assuaged if UASF client were to use a separate bit for the period after ST
13:09 < jeremyrubin> Well this isn't about what core should or shouldn't do per se
13:09 < jeremyrubin> it's that your SA understates the scenarios where a chain split can occur
13:09 < jeremyrubin> notably, core clients don't have any issue in this event, so flipping doesn't make sense
13:09 <@michaelfolkson> Well you are saying what UASF should or shouldn't do. So I'm saying what Core should or shouldn't do
13:10 < jeremyrubin> Core will happily follow most work chain
13:10 < jeremyrubin> UASF will not
13:10 < jeremyrubin> that's why it's an asymmetric argument
13:10 < jeremyrubin> If UASF has hashrate majority core will go along with it
13:10 < jeremyrubin> (this is the whole point of soft forks compatibility with old clients)
13:13 <@michaelfolkson> I just think in the very unlikely scenario where Taproot doesn't activate during Speedy Trial but does on the UASF client in the month or two after Speedy Trial has failed Core should probably release a client with Taproot activated.
13:13 <@michaelfolkson> It would mean 90 percent of miners were running the UASF client
13:13 < jeremyrubin> it does not mean that; flawed epistemology
13:13 < jeremyrubin> It might mean they just wanted to flag on an undefined bit because of shoddy pool software
13:14 < jeremyrubin> and this can happen any time in the year after ST
13:15 <@michaelfolkson> 90 percent wanted to flag on an undefined bit because of shoddy pool software?! Hmm
13:15 <@michaelfolkson> Maybe 20 percent is possible. 90 percent?
13:15 < jeremyrubin> Well what % of hashrate uses unmodified GBT to get their signals?
13:15 < harding> Just as a reminder, for the past several soft forks (maybe every fork since either BIP16 or BIP34), most miners appear to have "false signaled", i.e. set their nVersion or versionbits by tweaking tehir pool software rather than by getting the intended value from the getblocktemplate RPC.
13:16 < jeremyrubin> so if they, say, forgot to un-set it for 2 weeks would this problem occur widescale?
13:16 < harding> These days that seems to be  partly institutionalized by overt asicboost.
13:16 -!- _andrewtoth_ [~andrewtot@gateway/tor-sasl/andrewtoth] has joined ##taproot-activation
13:18 < harding> That's basically saying that what's in a miner's versionbits doesn't tell us anything about what software they're running.  90% of miners signaling bit 2 during ST doesn't mean they're running Bitcoin Core any more than 90% of miners signaling bit 2 after ST means they're running UASF.
13:18 -!- grubles [~user@gateway/tor-sasl/grubles] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
13:19 -!- andrewtoth_ [~andrewtot@gateway/tor-sasl/andrewtoth] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
13:19 < jeremyrubin> problematic!'
13:20 < jeremyrubin> and re: [4/19/21 13:13] <michaelfolkson> I just think in the very unlikely scenario where Taproot doesn't activate during Speedy Trial but does on the UASF client in the month or two after Speedy Trial has failed Core should probably release a client with Taproot activated.
13:20 -!- grubles [~user@gateway/tor-sasl/grubles] has joined ##taproot-activation
13:21 < jeremyrubin> this sets a poor precedent whereby mining cartel could just signal some arbitrary bit for arbitrary patches and say "you gotta flag day this in now"
13:22 < jeremyrubin> But don't mind me too much, as I think versiobits is too epistemlogically weak for the long term anywasy
13:23 < luke-jr> except that the community already supported BIP8 during that period, and Core has just been negligent
13:23 < luke-jr> "most work" has always been wrong. did you seriously not learn anything in 2017, jeremyrubin?
13:23 < luke-jr> Validity is a prerequisite, always
13:24 < jeremyrubin> Well from Core's persepctive it's most work and valid during this event
13:24 < jeremyrubin> Anyways, was curious if you know when you can merge the BIP changes for ST
13:25 < aj> for segwit, 25% of blocks continued to signal in the first active period (mostly in the first half of that period -- 35% of the first 1008 blocks), 98.5% signalled during locked_in (100% had signalled during the last signalling period, so if everyone were following core's signalling policy/bip9's recommendation; 100% should have signalled during locked_in and 0% once ACTIVE was hit)
13:25 < harding> aj: oh wow, that's a lot less false signaling than I thought.
13:27 < aj> harding: 50% of the first 72 (~12h) worth of blocks during ACTIVE
13:27 < aj> s/) worth/ worth)/
13:27 < aj> err "of" as well i guess
13:27 < belcher> maybe some of those false signallers just turned off their false signal once ACTIVE was reached
13:28 < harding> aj: ah, ok, that's more what I was thinking.
13:28 < belcher> flipping a bit in the header cant tell us for sure which rules are being enforced by the miner who made that block
13:29 < harding> aj: isn't 72/2 / 2016 more than 0%?
13:29 < jeremyrubin> aj: were there any orphans during last signalling period?
13:30 <@michaelfolkson> It will be interesting what Core does if Speedy Trial doesn't activate. My guess would be go back to circular arguments for 6+ months like we were having pre Speedy Trial
13:30 < aj> jeremyrubin: not afaik
13:30 < aj> harding: ?
13:30 < jeremyrubin> Did segwit go from started -> locked_in in the last period?
13:30 < jeremyrubin> or were there remaining periods
13:30 < jeremyrubin> there could have also been "signal till started impossible" (easy to code, signal if MTP < x)
13:30 < faketoshi> michaelfolkson: at that point I'd imagine that many would be running "based" client
13:31 < harding> aj: oh, I parsed your sentence wrong.  I read it as saying "0% [signaled] once ACTIVE was hit", but you were saying Core doesn't implement signaling once ACTIVE is hit.
13:31 < aj> harding: expected: >95% 100% 0%  ; observed: 100% 98.5% 25% [50% in first 12h, decreasing]
13:31 <@michaelfolkson> faketoshi: That would be my guess too but it is a guess
13:31 < harding> Yeah
13:31 < faketoshi> miners now have an interesting new incentive to either discredit ST or discredit UASFs
13:31 < harding> aj: thanks for the stats!
13:31 < belcher> core should do flag day activation if ST fails
13:31 < faketoshi> can that be compatible with based?
13:32 <@michaelfolkson> belcher: Good luck getting consensus on that
13:32 < harding> I think flag day activation if ST fails would be my preference also.
13:32 < belcher> michaelfolkson good luck getting the economy to run luke's UASF client
13:32 <@michaelfolkson> That would be an attack on UASF/Bitcoin Taproot
13:32 < belcher> who cares
13:32 <@michaelfolkson> That would not be playing nice
13:32 < harding> Wow, some people really like throwing around the word "attack" for technically based differences of opinions.
13:32 < aj> michaelfolkson: the whole point of a UASF is to cope with people "not playing nice"
13:33 < belcher> luke's altclient doesnt have a right to exist, we want bitcoin to the best it can be, not any particular faction within bitcoin
13:33 < belcher> in either case flag day is also a UASF
13:33 < faketoshi> no right to exist?
13:33 < faketoshi> are you serious rn?
13:34 < belcher> i see how that could be misinterpreted
13:34 < belcher> i dont mean what i think you read into that
13:34 <@michaelfolkson> harding: I think it is fairly used here. To know people are running the UASF client and Core releasing a flag day. Wow. If you can't use attack on UASF there I don't know when you can
13:34 < belcher> rephrasing: luke's altclient doesnt have the right to be adopted by the economy
13:34 < belcher> no software does
13:35 <@michaelfolkson> harding: I highly doubt Core would do that. I highly doubt there would be consensus to do that. And the people running the UASF client would be livid
13:35 < faketoshi> core would never get consensus on flag day should ST fail and our based client continue to exist
13:35 < harding> michaelfolkson: we always made it clear that the step after a failed ST was to consider our next response.  Just because some people pre-committed to a certain response doesn't mean we should be obligated to follow them, especially when that response has undesirable properties.
13:35 < faketoshi> it's literally be ignoring reality
13:35 < harding> michaelfolkson: you're already livid!
13:36 < faketoshi> it's one thing to ignore apparent consensus on BIP8, another thing entirely to ignore that the network is actually already somewhat running it
13:36 < belcher> i think bip8 and flag day will be incompatible because bip8 contains a mandatory bit flip in the block header.... the mandatory signalling seems to be controversial by my reading
13:36 <@michaelfolkson> harding: I'm not at all lol. I'm calmly discussing the scenarios with you :)
13:36 < belcher> but without mandatory signalling bip8 and flag day can be compatible i think
13:36 < faketoshi> core going flag day if ST fails = NACK across the board
13:36 < belcher> faketoshi what consensus on bip8? there isnt any
13:36 < faketoshi> you'd have to be mad
13:36 < faketoshi> hence the word "apparent"
13:37 <@michaelfolkson> faketoshi: I think there are UASF haters who would support flag day. But wow if that got merged. That would be a very aggressive move
13:37 < faketoshi> that would be core making themselves irrelevant
13:37 -!- amiti [sid373138@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-pusmgmabsjvlvofh] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
13:37 -!- glozow [sid453516@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-kaawansdialzxldm] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
13:37 < faketoshi> hope it doesn't happen
13:37 -!- moneyball [sid299869@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-kmivjplyxnsizuow] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
13:37 -!- schmidty [sid297174@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-xohuomptztkyphnm] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
13:37 < belcher> i dont see any consensus on bip8, apparent or otherwise, indeed we have these meeting minutes (https://gist.github.com/achow101/3e179501290abb7049de198d46894c7c) showing that theres no consensus on the value of LOT and as LOT is a parameter of bip8 then bip8 doesnt have consensus either
13:38 <@michaelfolkson> belcher: Pre Speedy Trial the only decision was the LOT parameter in BIP 8. To say there's no consensus on BIP 8 is frankly ridiculous
13:38 -!- glozow [sid453516@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-okmrsanguqkbwpwj] has joined ##taproot-activation
13:38 -!- amiti [sid373138@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-knzznmvjtzpbgmpv] has joined ##taproot-activation
13:38 < belcher> michaelfolkson if theres consensus on bip8 then what should the value of LOT be?
13:38 -!- elichai2 [sid212594@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-pgjznmqnvkisbftf] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
13:38 < faketoshi> that's where there isn't consensus :)
13:38 -!- harding [quassel@newmail.dtrt.org] has left ##taproot-activation ["http://quassel-irc.org - Chat comfortably. Anywhere."]
13:38 -!- rodarmor [sid210835@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-rpvupuyupqzmbego] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
13:38 < faketoshi> but i don't mean within core, i mean within the userbase.
13:39 < faketoshi> it is my opinion that core's decisions haven't been reflective of the users so much
13:39 <@michaelfolkson> belcher: There can be consensus on a BIP without consensus on every single parameter. Spelling out basics here for you
13:39 < belcher> i know, im asking within the userbase, that gist i linked contains many people who arent core devs
13:39 -!- moneyball [sid299869@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-mefjwsecalhpfnie] has joined ##taproot-activation
13:39 -!- schmidty [sid297174@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-voyrxpnvgghfmrer] has joined ##taproot-activation
13:39 -!- rodarmor [sid210835@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-qgrodqsqgsfrrrrm] has joined ##taproot-activation
13:39 -!- nioc [sid298274@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-xxnwjvzvdvvggnzz] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
13:39 -!- jamesob [sid180710@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-mjrieuemfsjkxxqj] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
13:39 < faketoshi> idk how you gauge consensus
13:39 -!- elichai2 [sid212594@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-htofrhqjoikorhcq] has joined ##taproot-activation
13:39 < belcher> faketoshi then how can anyone say that bip8 has consensus?
13:39 < belcher> if you cant gauge it
13:40 -!- nioc [sid298274@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-qttawfjqkoaxrgvm] has joined ##taproot-activation
13:40 -!- jamesob [sid180710@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-xevjkwlbwtvykusc] has joined ##taproot-activation
13:40 < belcher> consensus is hard to measure for sure, but _lack_ of consensus is easy, you just observe disagreements in the community and theres plenty of that around the LOT value
13:40 < faketoshi> we're splitting hairs anyway, my point that I think is reasonable is that should ST fail, I really doubt core would be able to go flag day. seems deliberately confrontational and risky
13:41 < faketoshi> what would be the point? why not be compatible at least with what's already live on the network and has a history of working?
13:41 < faketoshi> just to play a game of chicken?
13:41 < belcher> hold on i have a link, sec
13:42 < belcher> this comment thread has talk about the downsides of forced signalling https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/mruopv/bitcoincorebased_bip8_lottrue_taproot_activation/guqo8rx/
13:42 < belcher> so thats a reason to not go with bip8
13:42 < faketoshi> https://twitter.com/GrassFedBitcoin/status/1384238795332087809?s=20
13:42 <@michaelfolkson> https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/102585/what-is-the-benefit-of-forced-signaling-in-a-soft-fork-activation-mechanism
13:42 -!- duringo [ad004d11@173.0.77.17] has joined ##taproot-activation
13:43 < luke-jr> no, it isn't.
13:43 < belcher> michaelfolkson i disagree with luke's points in that post
13:43 < aj> "here's a thread explaining why X" "here's a twitter poll" "here's a question i asked and answered then marked my answer as correct"
13:43 < faketoshi> I think based client will be quite largely ignored for now but if ST fails I'd expect widespread adoption, even if core came out with something better it'd be slow
13:44 < belcher> but i realize iv got through this before, not sure its worth rehashing
13:44 < luke-jr> every single softfork in valuable-Bitcoin has had signalling.
13:44 < belcher> so what? things change
13:44 <@michaelfolkson> I wish you had raised them in those community meetings when everyone was happy with BIP 8 belcher. I think you even attended them... It is truly strange
13:45 < belcher> michaelfolkson i didnt know about them at the time
13:45 < luke-jr> belcher: that would be a change for the worse, and has no consensus
13:45 < belcher> i didnt invent all this, i just read around and let myself be convinced by what i thought was the best arguments
13:45 < luke-jr> lolwut
13:45 <@michaelfolkson> belcher: I thought you attended at least one? I'd have to check the log
13:45 < luke-jr> that's not even a new part of BIP8
13:45 < belcher> i attended all iirc, or at least most
13:45 < jeremyrubin> belcher: READING? Letting yourself be CONVINCED by BEST ARGUMENT? who does that?? madman
13:46 <@michaelfolkson> belcher: And you didn't raise your opposition to BIP 8? WHy?
13:46 < luke-jr> in fact, the first meeting EXPLICITLY discussed the mandatory signalling
13:46 < luke-jr> in deciding whether to relax it to the threshold
13:46 < belcher> michaelfolkson i did actually, wrote that email talking about flag day activation where i talked about the downsides of bip8
13:46 <@michaelfolkson> belcher: Not in the meetings as I recall
13:46 < belcher> thats right, it was in an email not a meeting
13:47 <@michaelfolkson> An email is fine too but I'd have thought you'd have raised it in the meetings too
13:47 < luke-jr> there is no downside to mandatory signalling, and plenty of downside to neglecting it
13:47 <@michaelfolkson> Staying quiet as consensus over BIP 8 emerged in meetings is strange to me
13:47 < belcher> iirc what happened was we had a meeting about LOT where there was much disagreement, i read some of the mailing list again and came across bluematt's flag day idea and thought it was worth popularizing in light of the LOT controversy
13:48 < jeremyrubin> this is why we generally try to not make binding decisions in IRC meetings -- thinking fast and slow. meeting is thinking fast, best to summarize and revisit w/ sufficient time
13:48 < jeremyrubin> at best outcome of an IRC meeting is a commitment to think more deeply about something
13:48 < belcher> yes, the meeting where we figured out that people had deep-seated disagreements about LOT was very valuable in hindsight
13:48 <@michaelfolkson> jeremyrubin: They were never binding as demonstrated by emergence of ST. You are the one who tried a binding on a coin flip
13:49 < jeremyrubin> c'mon now -- you know that the flip was about coordinating review
13:49 < BlueMatt> michaelfolkson: whut? I've been yelleing about mdandatory signaling being a terrible idea for more than six months
13:49 < BlueMatt> please dont claim people were "quiet" about it
13:49 <@michaelfolkson> BlueMatt: I was talking to Chris. He attended the meetings and didn't raise it. You didn't attend the meetings
13:50 <@michaelfolkson> BlueMatt: I didn't even know you were here to direct any of this at you
13:50 < jeremyrubin> BlueMatt: run while you still can i guess
13:51 < faketoshi> it's ok, he only ever comes to stir shit then says "i have to go to my real job" or something
13:51 < jeremyrubin> If you didn't know that mandatory signalling was deeply divisive, you weren't paying attention
13:51 < BlueMatt> what jeremyrubin said
13:51 < jeremyrubin> (and I'm a swing voter on mando!)
13:51 < faketoshi> we need a more inclusive bitcoin
13:52 < BlueMatt> the idea that people were all ready to go with mandatory signaling is a joke.
13:52 < BlueMatt> or bip 8, if you read it in the broad sense to include the lot=true mode
13:52 < robert_spigler> As far as I can tell, there's about 4 ppl running the UASF
13:52 < jeremyrubin> https://taprootactivation.com/
13:53 < jeremyrubin> 0 registered support for LOT=true
13:53 < belcher> to be fair, they are asking miners, by definition LOT=true doesnt care about miner's opinions
13:53 < BlueMatt> faketoshi: anyone can participate in the discussion, yo. anyone can run what they want, yo. I'm really not sure how it could be done in a more inclusive manner.
13:53 <@michaelfolkson> faketoshi: We do need to be more inclusive for mandatory signaling proponents. Very toxic environment towards mandatory signaling proponents
13:53 < faketoshi> 5 people worked on based and I've had a few others message me on twitter asking bits and pieces
13:53 < jeremyrubin> belcher: samson said he's a miner and likes it fwiw
13:53 < BlueMatt> jeremyrubin: lol maybe we should ask adam to confirm that one
13:53 < faketoshi> BlueMatt: it was an ironic comment in response to your complaint about "divisiveness"
13:54 < jeremyrubin> BlueMatt: samson != blockstream
13:54 < BlueMatt> faketoshi: I said something about divisiveness? news to me
13:54 < BlueMatt> jeremyrubin: ah, well I assume samson has some ~trivial hashpower.
13:54 < faketoshi> <jeremyrubin> If you didn't know that mandatory signalling was deeply divisive, you weren't paying attention
13:54 < faketoshi> <BlueMatt> what jeremyrubin said
13:54 < jeremyrubin> unclear if blockstream has a house view, but I could imagine a very unhappy board of directors
13:54 < jeremyrubin> not sure who is a big shareholder these days
13:54 < BlueMatt> probably more hashpwoer doing kyc enforcement then samson lol
13:55 < BlueMatt> faketoshi: then I really dont understand your response, whatever
13:55 < belcher> even so, the true source of power in any UASF is the economy, its them you have to ask if they want LOT=true
13:55 < faketoshi> clearly
13:55 < faketoshi> anyway, i'm out - before BlueMatt this time!
13:55 < robert_spigler> Why is it that so much of signalling is fake? Anyway to change this?
13:55 < jeremyrubin> you could charge to signal
13:55 < jeremyrubin> :p
13:55 <@michaelfolkson> Get back to your full time job faketoshi
13:55 < BlueMatt> robert_spigler: put it in the coinbase nonce
13:56 < luke-jr> robert_spigler: because miners want to create blocks faster than bitcoind responds with a transaction list
13:56 < jeremyrubin> i think signal via OP_RETURN with 1000 sats would be enough
13:56 < BlueMatt> errr, witness nonce
13:56 < belcher> couldnt they just put the required thing in the coinbase/witness nonce and then still not enforce taproot rules?
13:56 < luke-jr> robert_spigler: so the part that decides the signals is independent from the transaction selection query
13:56 < BlueMatt> belcher: sure, always can, but at least its less trivial
13:56 < luke-jr> and that would likely remain no matter where signalling moved
13:57 < belcher> it seems like its impossible to really know for sure what code a miner is running (unless you set it up, or you ask the miner and they tell you the truth)
13:57 < BlueMatt> belcher: ie instead of it being *required* that signaling be fake, its by default non-fake, and presumably only in the case of some super politically-charged nonsense like segwit would you bother faking it
13:57 < robert_spigler> Ok, that makes sense
13:57 < robert_spigler> So it doesn't remove fake signalling entirely, but helps the problem
13:58 < luke-jr> it doesn't help really
13:58 < belcher> BlueMatt right, so the nonce thing avoids the problem of easy-and-accidental-fake-signalling, which happens today because of the bit being set by a different part of the mining rig than the full node
13:58 <@michaelfolkson> I never get downvotes on StackExchange answers. Every time I post an activation related answer it gets downvoted lol
13:58 < belcher> (iv never mined before, this is news to me that they have it separated out like that)
13:58 < BlueMatt> belcher: right.
13:58 < luke-jr> belcher: it's separated for a reason, as I already explained
13:59 < belcher> yep
13:59 <@michaelfolkson> For anyone who is just clicking downvote you are free to add an alternative answer if you don't like mine :)
13:59 < jeremyrubin> TBH I think we could fix this by making sure that all core devs have like 1 block a year worth of hashrate
13:59 < jeremyrubin> would be good to have more dirty hands
13:59 < robert_spigler> Any proposals to make a change like this?
13:59 < BlueMatt> robert_spigler: I've suggested using the witness nonce repeatedly, but its a chunk of code to change, and I dont particiularly think its maybe even worth bothering to write
14:00 < BlueMatt> robert_spigler: that said, I've suggested many, many times that core should be returning random data there to make sure miners handle commitments if a commitment is ever added
14:00 < BlueMatt> and, also, still nothing, cause, like, someone has to go write it, and its probably annoying to write, and not a high priority
14:01 < robert_spigler> Interesting, thanks
14:01 < luke-jr> and doesn't solve anything
14:02 -!- mips [~mips@gateway/tor-sasl/mips] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
14:02 < BlueMatt> it definitely makes it a chunk more work to change
14:02 < BlueMatt> most likely the easiest way to change it would be to patch bitcoin core
14:02 -!- mips [~mips@gateway/tor-sasl/mips] has joined ##taproot-activation
14:02 < BlueMatt> which you could do, but then at least you're patching bitcoin core instead of just changing a config parameter
14:03 < aj> jeremyrubin: "1 block a year worth of hashrate" seems like it's about 3 petahash/s; so about 34 antminer S19j ?
14:03 < BlueMatt> but everyone is required to write their own mining software from the ground up
14:05 < jeremyrubin> aj: yikes. a bit more than I though, but also not-no! If that's what it is, it's still a somewhat small cost to get e.g. rackspace locally, even if non-economic overall (subsidized mining for devs).
14:06 < jeremyrubin> I think the skin in the game would be good for aligning devs and miners better
14:06 < BlueMatt> thats some pretty nontrivial power costs across a year, though
14:07 < aj> jeremyrubin: 105kW worth of power at the wall in total, so ~7 racks worth of power?
14:07 < luke-jr> smh @ implication again that only devs and miners matter
14:07 < BlueMatt> I mean hopefully not hosted in a datacenter, that's like 7k/mo, at least
14:08 < jeremyrubin> luke-jr: devs are already largely users
14:08 < jeremyrubin> few also mine
14:08 < BlueMatt> luke-jr: yeesh, please dont read so much into *everything*. not everything is some slight against you or some attempt to "ignore users"
14:09 < jeremyrubin> but yeah coming to think of it a rack or two is probably the right unit as you get exposed to a negligible level of economy of scale issues
14:09 <@michaelfolkson> I do get the impression you don't like users doing anything other than just running what Core tells them to run BlueMatt
14:09 < jeremyrubin> maybe blockstream could help with physically hosting them, but let devs pick the software being run
14:10 <@michaelfolkson> Maybe the difference between luke-jr and you BlueMatt is he trusts in users more than you do
14:10 < BlueMatt> michaelfolkson: then you haven't bothered to read half of what I've written, but thanks for, yet again, putting words in peoples' mouthes
14:10 < jeremyrubin> BlueMatt: for 150kw i'm getting like 2.5k a month with 10c electric?
14:10 < jeremyrubin> err
14:10 <@michaelfolkson> BlueMatt: I have read *a lot* of it
14:10 < jeremyrubin> typo'd
14:10 < jeremyrubin> $378?
14:10 < BlueMatt> anyway, I'm not gonna hang around here just to have michaelfolkson say random accusatory nonsense, see y'all!
14:11 < BlueMatt> jeremyrubin: likely, I was just noting that getting it *hosted* in a dc is a lot
14:11 < BlueMatt> if its 7 racks thats like 7k/mo, depending on where
14:11 < BlueMatt> maybe 3.5 if you go real cheap
14:11 < jeremyrubin> oh yeah; i think datacenter undermines some of the value
14:11 -!- BlueMatt [~BlueMatt@unaffiliated/bluematt] has left ##taproot-activation ["Ex-Chat"]
14:11 < jeremyrubin> since we want devs to have max chaos
14:11 <@michaelfolkson> An accusation? Can't discuss anything or even give my impression
14:12 <@michaelfolkson> I do prefer people who don't get offended so easily
14:12 <@michaelfolkson> Just easier to interact. Don't have to step on eggshells
14:13 < jeremyrubin> I prefer people who focus on what I say, not how I smell -- says the man who hasn't showered in a year
14:13 < belcher> what you said could be read as putting words in his mouth
14:13 < jeremyrubin> Generally people try to be pleasent to interract with, agreeing is hard enough
14:13 <@michaelfolkson> jeremyrubin: I don't go running off because I'm offended
14:14 < luke-jr> belcher: except those words leave his mouth regularly
14:14 < belcher> no wonder he left lol, i wouldnt want to put up with this either
14:14 <@michaelfolkson> jeremyrubin: Feel free to test this. You can offend me as strongly as you like publicly and I promise not to run off
14:15 <@michaelfolkson> belcher: Discussion is tough
14:15 < belcher> michaelfolkson right but why would he? we're meant to be trying to make bitcoin better not insult each other
14:15 < jeremyrubin> Just because *you* have a higher tolerance for such discourse doesn't mean everyone does
14:15 < belcher> i dont see the value in personal attacks
14:15 <@michaelfolkson> <@michaelfolkson> I do get the impression you don't like users doing anything other than just running what Core tells them to run BlueMatt
14:15 < jeremyrubin> Even if matt (or anyone) is more sensitive, it doesn't mean offending them intentionally is a good idea
14:15 <@michaelfolkson> Insult? Seriously? Egg shells, egg shells
14:16 < jeremyrubin> Matt has a lot of excellent analysis and I prefer an environment where he (or others) will participate
14:16 < belcher> you dont think that accusing him of taking away user's autonomy isnt an insult?
14:16 < luke-jr> lol
14:16 < aj> belcher: it helps build an echo chamber when the people you attack leave (and other people silence themselves to avoid being attacked)
14:16 <@michaelfolkson> "taking away user's autonomy" is "I do get the impression you don't like users doing anything other than just running what Core tells them to run BlueMatt"
14:16 < jeremyrubin> I've gotten DMs from people in this very convo wanting to weigh in but not wanting to deal with the amount of vitriol
14:16 < jeremyrubin> *in this --> about this
14:16 <@michaelfolkson> If you say so belcher, deary me I am getting offended. I think I'm running
14:17 < jeremyrubin> Making a mockery of Matt choosing to disengage isn't exactly helping your case
14:18 <@michaelfolkson> Any criticism isn't ok. Any observation isn't ok (if it even hints at negativity)
14:18 < jeremyrubin> It's just clearly false. Matts been a tireless advocate for Bitcoin users, attempting to denigrate him isn't going to win you much.
14:18 <@michaelfolkson> Maybe we should just all agree with one person and do what he says
14:19 < belcher> you mean luke-jr? ;D
14:19 < belcher> (this is a joke luke dont leave)
14:19 <@michaelfolkson> belcher: That was funny, I'll give you that :)
14:19 < jeremyrubin> If you wanted to engage him on the issue you could ask him "under what circumstances would something other than what you proposed be acceptable?"
14:19 <@michaelfolkson> Luke doesn't leave. He takes full on criticism and hounding on the chin
14:19 -!- faketoshi [~quassel@static-198-54-131-171.cust.tzulo.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
14:20 <@michaelfolkson> He gets *a lot* more than Matt does from what I've seen
14:21 < belcher> imagine an irc channel where we can try to improve bitcoin without having to take stuff on the chin
14:21 <@michaelfolkson> With no criticism of your perspective or your ideas? Yeah sounds good
14:21 < jeremyrubin> TBH I think generally people get back what they put out michaelfolkson
14:29 <@michaelfolkson> I watched from afar 2015-2017. If criticizing a viewpoint, argument or perspective is vitriol I don't know how to describe 2015-2017
14:31 < jeremyrubin> I was in the very middle of 2015. I hired Gavin to MIT. I ran Scaling Bitcoin. People sucking then doesn't excuse sucking now.
14:31 <@michaelfolkson> Building an adversarial system without even a hint of being adversarial towards a viewpoint, argument, perspective
14:32 < jeremyrubin> You just can't be suprised if someone chooses not to want to work with you. As belcher puts it, no one, by virtue of writing software, mandates it to be run. No one by virtue of speaking mandates a response, or mandates others work with them
14:32 < jeremyrubin> bitcoin is a volunteer run and led project
14:32 < jeremyrubin> if you make yourself ass to work with, no one has to
14:33 <@michaelfolkson> Being an ass = Being adversarial towards a viewpoint, argument, perspective
14:33 -!- bcman [~quassel@static-198-54-131-171.cust.tzulo.com] has joined ##taproot-activation
14:34 < belcher> theres a difference between criticising an argument and a person
14:35 <@michaelfolkson> I think the only criticism I personally have for Matt is he doesn't take any criticism whatsoever well. Other than that I think he's great. I don't agree with him on some things but that's same for everyone
14:36 < jeremyrubin> I've had lots of frustrating convos with matt, and I've even complained about his personality as well when talking to confidants (sorry matt). But I usually keep it separate from when i'm engaging with him professionally, I keep it to technical content. I also like hanging out with him socially. If you too heavily intermix the 3 of those you're likely to get none.
14:36 < belcher> no, you had a criticism that he wants to take away user autonomy
14:36 <@michaelfolkson> belcher: Seriously, read the words. I did not say that
14:37 <@michaelfolkson> I have got the impression that he thinks users should lean heavily on Core when making decisions. Luke's perspective seems different
14:38 <@michaelfolkson> I'm not saying either is right. I'm not sure tbh. A really uninformed user fits the Matt perspective better than Luke's
14:39 <@michaelfolkson> (if indeed that is Matt's perspective which he disputed)
14:43 < mol_> michaelfolkson, when are you going to stop being a troll? you've driven this channel into arguing over shits other than constructive discussions and you've been off topic but you would quickly accuse someone else of being off topic
14:44 < mol_> i do wonder if most of the channel feel need a better place with fresh air for discussion, i would suggest we create another channel and i have channel ##taproot created for devs and anyone else who would live to leave this channel
14:44 < jeremyrubin> ##bitcoin-therapy?
14:45 < mol_> that too :D
14:48 < mol_> s/live/like/
14:48 < jeremyrubin> I'm gonna sign outta here, thanks mol_. michaelfolkson, I'll just leave you with this: don't focus terribly on justifying what you said as being right or wrong. Focus on the fact that you pissed someone off and got feedback to engage in a different way to see more success. If people didn't care for you to become a constructive contributor no one would bother with the feedback, you'd just get /ignore'd.
14:49 -!- jeremyrubin [~jr@024-176-247-182.res.spectrum.com] has left ##taproot-activation ["Konversation terminated!"]
14:49 < luke-jr> mol_: are we required to leave this channel?
14:49 < mol_> no
14:49 < mol_> luke-jr, that is my suggestion, it's up to the channel to decide
14:55 < aj> why would mol_ get to decide who's required to leave the channel?
14:56 < luke-jr> well, he only invited non-devs "who would live to leave this channel"
14:56 < luke-jr> perhaps a misinterpretation, which is why I clarified
14:56 < aj> oh, required to leave in order to join the other one?
14:57 < luke-jr> right
14:58 -!- bcman [~quassel@static-198-54-131-171.cust.tzulo.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
15:02 -!- huesal [~root@152.170.89.151] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
15:02 < mol_> aj, no
15:04 < mol_> aj, i've seen the constant bickering over nonsensical stuff which has nothing to do with taproot activation and im sure many people are tired of it so i just raise my suggestion that if people want to have a different room for discussion then i have that room for them
15:04 -!- huesal [~root@152.170.89.151] has joined ##taproot-activation
15:15 -!- duringo [ad004d11@173.0.77.17] has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
15:24 -!- bcman [~quassel@static-198-54-131-171.cust.tzulo.com] has joined ##taproot-activation
15:27 -!- duringo [ad004d11@173.0.77.17] has joined ##taproot-activation
15:52 -!- bcman [~quassel@static-198-54-131-171.cust.tzulo.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
16:23 -!- bcman [~quassel@static-198-54-131-171.cust.tzulo.com] has joined ##taproot-activation
16:28 -!- bcman [~quassel@static-198-54-131-171.cust.tzulo.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
16:56 -!- duringo [ad004d11@173.0.77.17] has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
16:57 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@205.209.28.54] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
16:59 -!- bcman [~quassel@static-198-54-131-171.cust.tzulo.com] has joined ##taproot-activation
17:00 -!- belcher_ [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined ##taproot-activation
17:03 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
17:08 -!- bcman is now known as faketoshi
17:12 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined ##taproot-activation
17:15 -!- mol_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
17:16 -!- bcman [~quassel@static-198-54-131-76.cust.tzulo.com] has joined ##taproot-activation
17:18 -!- faketoshi [~quassel@static-198-54-131-171.cust.tzulo.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
17:24 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:26 -!- mol_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined ##taproot-activation
17:28 -!- belcher_ is now known as belcher
17:28 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
17:31 -!- bcman is now known as faketoshi
17:32 -!- cguida [~Adium@2601:282:200:ae00:c0b3:1fe8:c368:43ba] has joined ##taproot-activation
17:46 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has quit [Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net]
17:46 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has joined ##taproot-activation
17:50 -!- molz_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined ##taproot-activation
17:53 -!- mol_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
17:58 -!- cguida [~Adium@2601:282:200:ae00:c0b3:1fe8:c368:43ba] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
18:02 -!- OP_NOP [OP_NOP@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/opnop/x-41418994] has joined ##taproot-activation
18:02 -!- cguida [~Adium@2601:282:200:ae00:c0b3:1fe8:c368:43ba] has joined ##taproot-activation
18:07 -!- cguida [~Adium@2601:282:200:ae00:c0b3:1fe8:c368:43ba] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
18:08 -!- duringo [ad004d11@173.0.77.17] has joined ##taproot-activation
18:14 -!- mol_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined ##taproot-activation
18:17 -!- molz_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
18:20 -!- cguida [~Adium@2601:282:200:ae00:c0b3:1fe8:c368:43ba] has joined ##taproot-activation
18:24 -!- cguida [~Adium@2601:282:200:ae00:c0b3:1fe8:c368:43ba] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
18:36 -!- cguida [~Adium@2601:282:200:ae00:c0b3:1fe8:c368:43ba] has joined ##taproot-activation
18:39 < robert_spigler> I know we have the miner list (and we'll have the signalling as well), but Is it a good idea to get a list going of what companies are planning on running 0.21.1? With luke-jr 's chart's we can hopefully see user downloads as well
18:39 < robert_spigler> Try to get a good idea of economic enforcement
18:41 -!- cguida [~Adium@2601:282:200:ae00:c0b3:1fe8:c368:43ba] has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
18:41 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined ##taproot-activation
18:49 < luke-jr> robert_spigler: s/0.21.1/Core+Taproot
18:58 -!- mol_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
19:06 -!- cguida [~Adium@2601:282:200:ae00:c0b3:1fe8:c368:43ba] has joined ##taproot-activation
19:10 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@97-118-239-55.hlrn.qwest.net] has joined ##taproot-activation
19:11 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
19:12 -!- cguida [~Adium@2601:282:200:ae00:c0b3:1fe8:c368:43ba] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
19:39 -!- cguida [~Adium@2601:282:200:ae00:c0b3:1fe8:c368:43ba] has joined ##taproot-activation
19:40 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has quit [Quit: ZNC - http://znc.sourceforge.net]
19:41 -!- luke-jr [~luke-jr@unaffiliated/luke-jr] has joined ##taproot-activation
19:43 -!- cguida [~Adium@2601:282:200:ae00:c0b3:1fe8:c368:43ba] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
19:48 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined ##taproot-activation
19:59 -!- cguida [~Adium@2601:282:200:ae00:c0b3:1fe8:c368:43ba] has joined ##taproot-activation
20:07 -!- openoms_ [~quassel@gateway/tor-sasl/openoms] has joined ##taproot-activation
20:09 -!- openoms [~quassel@gateway/tor-sasl/openoms] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
20:17 -!- mol_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined ##taproot-activation
20:21 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
21:09 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined ##taproot-activation
21:09 -!- ctrlbreak [~ctrlbreak@159.2.165.130] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
21:30 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined ##taproot-activation
21:35 -!- mol_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
21:41 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
21:48 -!- criley_ [~criley@c-73-224-125-58.hsd1.fl.comcast.net] has joined ##taproot-activation
21:50 -!- criley [~criley@c-73-224-125-58.hsd1.fl.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
22:43 -!- OP_NOP [OP_NOP@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/opnop/x-41418994] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
23:38 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@unaffiliated/aaronvanw] has joined ##taproot-activation
--- Log closed Tue Apr 20 00:00:31 2021