--- Log opened Wed Apr 28 00:00:39 2021
00:04 -!- mips [~mips@gateway/tor-sasl/mips] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
00:04 -!- mips [~mips@gateway/tor-sasl/mips] has joined ##taproot-activation
00:24 -!- mol_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined ##taproot-activation
00:26 -!- molz_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined ##taproot-activation
00:27 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
00:29 -!- mol_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
00:51 -!- rich is now known as paultroon
01:11 -!- mol_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined ##taproot-activation
01:14 -!- molz_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
01:19 -!- jonatack [jon@gateway/vpn/airvpn/jonatack] has joined ##taproot-activation
01:41 -!- ksedgwic [ksedgwicma@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-twstbsolxgbfeyub] has quit [Quit: Bridge terminating on SIGTERM]
01:41 -!- dunxen [dunxenx0fo@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-nplfcletzcumisbi] has quit [Quit: Bridge terminating on SIGTERM]
01:41 -!- robert_spigler [robertspig@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-blxwwhnewjrneslj] has quit [Quit: Bridge terminating on SIGTERM]
01:41 -!- mandelb[m] [mandelbmat@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-xrosymwwcvacysza] has quit [Quit: Bridge terminating on SIGTERM]
01:41 -!- awesome_doge [awesome-do@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-zljpxidnvrneehli] has quit [Quit: Bridge terminating on SIGTERM]
01:52 -!- mandelb[m] [mandelbmat@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-qqomqcreejydtqeq] has joined ##taproot-activation
02:06 -!- RusAlex [~Chel@unaffiliated/rusalex] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
02:08 -!- RusAlex [~Chel@unaffiliated/rusalex] has joined ##taproot-activation
02:14 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined ##taproot-activation
02:17 -!- mol_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
02:17 -!- molz_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined ##taproot-activation
02:20 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
02:39 -!- awesome_doge [awesome-do@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-sgdrymxrtfyrvqyv] has joined ##taproot-activation
02:39 -!- ksedgwic [ksedgwicma@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-liewlyijcolvaxpc] has joined ##taproot-activation
02:39 -!- robert_spigler [robertspig@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-ffhuimjqrifccnpa] has joined ##taproot-activation
02:39 -!- dunxen [dunxenx0fo@gateway/shell/matrix.org/x-raubrxololzpuyor] has joined ##taproot-activation
03:05 -!- mol_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined ##taproot-activation
03:08 -!- molz_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
03:12 -!- leevancleef [8074ecf1@128-116-236-241.static.eolo.it] has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
03:29 -!- viaj3ro [67569fa2@103.86.159.162] has joined ##taproot-activation
03:43 -!- viaj3ro [67569fa2@103.86.159.162] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
03:55 < yevaud> <belcher> taproot and other blockspace-saving tech makes the price of block space go _up_ not down, because users can use block space more efficiently and therefore are able to pay more for each vbyte
03:57 < yevaud> belcher: I'm not sure that's really a strong argument. from what we can observe, essentially nobody is optimizing for efficiency. most businesses just take the cost, or pass it on to the user where they don't have to think about it.
03:58 -!- viaj3ro [67569fa2@103.86.159.162] has joined ##taproot-activation
03:58 < yevaud> I worked on a backend that was paying >$10 a transaction its users made, it wasn't even worth adding batching because each user was such a cash cow that it didn't matter. I'm sure other companies have come to that conclusion too.
03:59 < yevaud> in fact the support cost of someone complaining that their transaction wasn't submitted with $10 of fees was actually higher than just paying the fees the majority of the time. every person moaning about confirmation times could burn 10 minutes of support time easily.
04:05 -!- viaj3ro [67569fa2@103.86.159.162] has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
05:12 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
05:17 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined ##taproot-activation
05:26 <@michaelfolkson> yevaud: I think many of us want Bitcoin to support more usage and more use cases as long as it doesn't hurt existing users. As usage and use cases increase demand for block space will increase and fees will go up.
05:27 <@michaelfolkson> yevaud: Although paying a $10 transaction fee may make sense for some companies would a $50 transaction fee or a $100 transaction fee?
05:28 <@michaelfolkson> yevaud: At some point those companies will need to take block efficiency more seriously. Ideally they would already be taking it seriously but at some point they will be forced to take it seriously (assuming Bitcoin usage continues to grow)
05:34 < yevaud> michaelfolkson: keep in mind that essentially no regular bitcoin core contributor is actually part of the industry. this has been a consistent occurrence that assumptions are made which don't match how the industry actually uses the network and the software.
05:35 <@michaelfolkson> yevaud: Agreed, I don't doubt what you say. You know better than me about the approach of the company you worked for
05:36 <@michaelfolkson> yevaud: But presumably that company wants more usage and more use cases for Bitcoin as much as I do? Surely that company wants Bitcoin to continue to grow?
05:36 <@michaelfolkson> If it does it is going to have to plan for increased demand for block space in the future
05:38 <@michaelfolkson> One of Taproot's benefits is that it allows users to do more with less eg MuSig. This will help protocols like Lightning serve more users
05:39 <@michaelfolkson> I think it is very shortsighted at this early stage to try to limit Bitcoin's growth because somehow that will prop up block space demand. That block space demand will be there regardless assuming Bitcoin continues to grow
05:40 < yevaud> michaelfolkson: a bitcoin exchange exists to maximize its income, this means that their goals are going to be justified differently to yours. ie, we supported bech32 from day one, but it wasn't added to the front end because it would cause increased support volume.
05:40 <@michaelfolkson> yevaud: I think we are talking past each other (and this probably should be in ##taproot-bip-review rather than here)
05:41 <@michaelfolkson> yevaud: But if a Bitcoin exchange doesn't want Bitcoin to grow, serve more users and more use cases that is a bizarre perspective to me
06:38 -!- OP_NOP [OP_NOP@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/opnop/x-41418994] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
06:48 < queip> belcher: why you comment like: ''  "We're not the altcoin Core is" '' .  Is it known what is the community consensus about *exact method* of activating ST?  I would say it was under-discussed (with wider community)
06:49 < queip> (that comment was sarcastic, afaik)
06:50 < belcher> yeah its sarcastic, i want to poke fun at the alt-client claim that it represents the real bitcoin consensus rather than core
06:50 < queip> well I think neither has real consensus
06:51 < belcher> if people say NACK they have to provide a reason
06:51 < queip> I do not think Bitcoin Core -based Taproot [forcing] Client is claimed by most of it's users to "represents the real bitcoin consensus", at least I would say this is under-discussed (though, most people will simply run Bitcoin Core; or perhaps will delay upgrading for a while)
06:52 < belcher> from what i see (by talking to people) their main reason is that they object in principle to the idea of a miner-activated-soft-fork, but if they actually say that it wont convince anyone which i suspect is why they kept quiet and call us liars instead
06:52 < belcher> queip for example luke absolutely claimed multiple times that bip8 lot=true represented the real community consensus
06:52 < belcher> i can show you irc logs and everything if you dont believe me
06:53 < queip> I think only 1 person called you liar, and we just yesterday discussed to improve on that, so you can like stop hurting and hug ;)
06:53 < queip> luke-jr: does bip8 lot=true represent the real community consensus?
06:55 < queip> belcher: can we take some good out of this, and agree to "next time" try to slowly discuss even "details" of soft fork, like timeline, bh/mtp, lot, and merge only after like months of preparation?  e.g. if we work on next big idea then planthis many months ahead, even ahead of proposing some kind of ST?
06:56 < queip> I see lot was done this time, but less so for some details, so this period is what should be longer by few months. Since proposing new tech usually takes year/years, it shouldn't be a problem
06:56 < queip> (I hope)
06:56 < belcher> from what i saw thats what happened this time, all of these meetings and mailing lists were out in the open and anyone was invited to join
06:57 < queip> belcher: it seems the final decision to merge BH+MTP instead BH was just like a week or few, and almost entire community had no idea there was such choice (consensus level after all) being made, we just now start to find out
06:58 < queip> I don't want that just to be anal, but to ensure community first stalks about every detail
06:58 < queip> *talks
06:59 < belcher> idk, i was following this every and i was aware of it, the bitcoin core process is very open (i normally dont follow the bitcoin core process since i usually work on joinmarket and coinswap but i found it very easy to just start following the github, mailing list and irc channels)
06:59 < belcher> every day*
07:00 < belcher> i suspect that the vast majority of the community doesnt actually care much about block height vs MTP, they just want taproot activated in any way, and thats why a lot of the community didnt really pay much attention to that detail
07:01 < queip> maybe a guideline that (besides some kind of emergency instant fix) all possibly consensus-level changes even just STs and such, should wait 2 months in their *final* fully ACKed form, before merge, being delayed more if there are NACKs while we talk to community?
07:03 < queip> belcher: that's true they do not care, but that we should try to change at least a bit :) and process should give these eg 2 months to ones that try to get interested and involved
07:05 -!- OP_NOP [OP_NOP@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/opnop/x-41418994] has joined ##taproot-activation
07:10 -!- OP_NOP [OP_NOP@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/opnop/x-41418994] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
07:27 -!- molz_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined ##taproot-activation
07:27 -!- OP_NOP [OP_NOP@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/opnop/x-41418994] has joined ##taproot-activation
07:29 -!- mol [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has joined ##taproot-activation
07:31 -!- mol_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
07:32 -!- molz_ [~mol@unaffiliated/molly] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
07:40 -!- fiach_dubh [a2fd4716@162.253.71.22] has joined ##taproot-activation
07:56 < mol> queip, maybe read the logs of this channel from the beginning? like July 2020
08:17 -!- OP_NOP [OP_NOP@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/opnop/x-41418994] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
08:18 -!- grubles [~user@gateway/tor-sasl/grubles] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
08:20 -!- grubles [~user@gateway/tor-sasl/grubles] has joined ##taproot-activation
08:27 -!- cguida [~Adium@2601:282:200:ae00:a083:57e:580:7337] has joined ##taproot-activation
08:36 < queip> mol: will I find there discussion about that specific details of BH/MTP? can I see anywhere community reaching cons. on that?
08:36 < queip> oh, gmax was here. nice, though would be even better to stay
08:50 <@michaelfolkson> queip: From what I recall there was no discussion of BH/MTP until after Speedy Trial was proposed. Everyone was happy with block heights when BIP 8 was revised
08:52 <@michaelfolkson> BIP 8 had two major revisions. One back in February at the time of the first community meetings and then again after Speedy Trial was proposed to incorporate the min activation height
09:00 -!- fiach_dubh [a2fd4716@162.253.71.22] has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
09:01 < luke-jr> queip: there was consensus on BIP8, but not LOT=True; however, LOT=True had majority support, which is more than enough to move forward
09:02 < luke-jr> queip: with the current timeout being 18 months out, that's also a kind of concession to those who preferred LOT=False; and of course nobody forces them to personally run it
09:03 < copumpkin> I think it's helpful when saying things like "majority", to provide quantitative data supporting it (i.e., lists of names saying so), otherwise folks will argue to no end about it
09:03 < belcher> lot=true never had majority support
09:03 < copumpkin> ^ see? :P
09:03 < luke-jr> [13:52:41] <belcher> queip for example luke absolutely claimed multiple times that bip8 lot=true represented the real community consensus <-- this is an absolute lie and belcher knows it (I've called him out on it several times now)
09:04 < belcher> here's some data from the time we discussed it https://gist.github.com/achow101/3e179501290abb7049de198d46894c7c
09:04 < belcher> also mentioned in this email by michaelfolkson (https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018425.html): "I agree that there wasn’t overwhelming consensus for either LOT=true or LOT=false. However, from my perspective there was clearly more strong opposition (what would usually be deemed a NACK in Bitcoin Core review terminology) from Bitcoin Core contributors, Lightning developers and other communit
09:04 < belcher> y members against LOT=true than there was for LOT=false"
09:05 < copumpkin> thanks belcher :)
09:05 < belcher> luke-jr you just said literally right now that you reckon LOT=true had majority support
09:06 < belcher> maybe it can be said "majority support" and "community consensus" are slightly different things, but thats far away from saying i said an "absolute lie"
09:06 < luke-jr> completely different things
09:24 -!- cec [aedb0b09@9.sub-174-219-11.myvzw.com] has joined ##taproot-activation
09:35 < Emcy> luke you are famous for being mysterious with your opinions and positions and then straight up call people liars when they, in your view, interpret you wrong
09:36 < Emcy> like even when people sincerely request clarification, it doesnt really happen
09:36 < Emcy> why do you think everyones trying to lie about you all the time?
09:37 < Emcy> not just randos, people youve known and talked to for years
09:43 < luke-jr> you'd have to ask them
09:45 -!- liberliver [~Thunderbi@46.101.127.98] has joined ##taproot-activation
09:45 < Emcy> no im asking you luke
09:47 < Emcy> you can believe me or not when i say this, my impression of how people are reacting to your handling of the discourse seems, to me, to range from bafflement to being really rather hurt by it.
09:47 -!- liberliver [~Thunderbi@46.101.127.98] has quit [Client Quit]
09:51 -!- larryruane_ [uid473749@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-tcflvkzsljnpjlra] has joined ##taproot-activation
09:57 < luke-jr> Emcy: I cannot explain why they are lying all the time
09:57 < jnewbery_> It seems there are two It seems there are two possible explanations.
09:57 < jnewbery_> One: that everyone apart from luke-jr is a liar. Just in the last few days I see belcher, harding, achow, gmaxwell, jeremyrubin, aj and many others being called liars - a set that includes people who have frequently disagreed with each other about all manner of things.
09:57 < jnewbery_> Two: that not all of those people are compulsive liars, and in fact it's luke-jr's grasp on truth and reality that's at fault.
09:58 < jnewbery_> You can choose which of those you think more likely.
09:59 < luke-jr> trying to paint this as just me is also a lie, though. many people agree with me.
10:00 < luke-jr> not to mention verifiable facts
10:01 -!- jnewbery_ is now known as jnewbery
10:02 < luke-jr> to top it off, some of these lies are personal attacks against me that I know are wrong simply because I am myself (eg, the lie that I have "misbehaved" as BIP editor)
10:04 < Emcy> it looksed for all the damn world as if you were stalling, and you did nothing to assuage that impression
10:04 < Emcy> and then when people really kicked off about it, you 'got around' to looking at it, and literally 2 minutes later it was merged
10:05 < luke-jr> are you seriously suggesting I should have *actually* stalled to avoid you creating this false narrative?
10:05 < Emcy> you may that that assuming youre stalling is unreasonable, and perhaps in isolation it would be, but add in your other frankly bizarre behaviour around ST and it becomes not unreasonable to start thinking that
10:06 < Emcy> have you ever considered that people are reaching their own conclusions about you and your intentions, which you seem to hate so much, because you dont actually explain anything youre doing or thinking
10:06 < Emcy> youre bringing much of this on yourself luke
10:06 -!- fiach_dubh [a2fd4716@162.253.71.22] has joined ##taproot-activation
10:07 < luke-jr> that's called blaming the victim
10:07 < Emcy> how the fuck are you a victim?
10:09 < luke-jr> think about it
10:09 < Emcy> see this is what i mean
10:09 < Emcy> people are reaching their own conclusions about you because you wont EXPLAIN ANYTHING
10:10 <@michaelfolkson> I don't think this is Taproot activation related. #bitcoin?
10:10 <@michaelfolkson> Or if it is BIP editor related the bitcoin-dev mailing list?
10:12 < Emcy> it surely as hell is, all of this has been over taproot for some reason
10:12 <@michaelfolkson> Taking a week (or whatever it was) to merge a BIP PR doesn't seem to me to be a problem. But if people have other problems with Luke as a BIP editor they should highlight them on the mailing list imo
10:13 < Emcy> please go an nanny somewhere else for once micheal, your 'organisational skills' are not needed absolutely everywhere at all times m8
10:13 < luke-jr> Emcy: when you blame Joe for the bad actions of others toward Joe, that is victim blaming, no matter what gravity you judge the bad actions to have
10:13  * michaelfolkson leaves
10:14 < Emcy> what bad actions? no one literally knows what youre talking about
10:15 < Emcy> no one knows what kind of insult you feel has been done to you
10:15 < Emcy> but i suppose confirming that that *is* how you feel is some progress?
10:19 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@205.209.28.54] has joined ##taproot-activation
10:37 < queip> I had the impression (mby wrong) that luke's main objection is that mtp/bh question as part of bip8/9 discussion should had gone longer reached more agreement before merging. as for disagreement between ST lot=0 and lot=1, instead "we" offer another client so that's ok [though would be better to make it consensus compatible in everything besides LOT]
10:38 -!- fiach_dubh [a2fd4716@162.253.71.22] has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
10:38 -!- fiach_dubh [a2fd4716@162.253.71.22] has joined ##taproot-activation
10:42  * queip wonders if there exists counseling but for developers
10:43 < fiach_dubh> matt odell would be a good choice for counsellor
10:48 < queip> faketoshi: on reddit gmax comments that name of this project is missleading, and he refers to the one without "-based". perhaps you or someone wants to 1) inform gmax it is being changed and 2) use the name we seem to had agreed on, BitcoinCore-based Taproot [Forcing] Client - https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/myxe9z/taproot_activation_status/gvynuax/ ; I link this not to critique anyone, but just so that it might be cleared up
10:54 < Emcy> queip i think the counselling is needed for 'uasf veterans' from 2017 because theyre acting like they have ptsd
10:55 < queip> could be \o/
10:55 < Emcy> theyre jump;ing ont he floor in the middle of the supermarket because a glass jar fell of a shelf and exploded
10:55 < luke-jr> that's just nonsense
10:56 < Emcy> thats coming from me, one of the ~1200-1400 people or so who actually ran a bip148 node
10:56 -!- cec [aedb0b09@9.sub-174-219-11.myvzw.com] has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
11:01 < queip> desu lots of developers have "PTDS" from arguing, and are easily take offense, imo
11:02 < queip> that was fun time. I joined here thinking it's the same but now to defend TR
11:03 < Emcy> ptsd is maladaptive. it harms the sufferer
11:05 < queip> so BCbTFC, is possibly consensus-incompatible with BC (besides obvious LOT=1), is that so? due to the possible discrepancy in time/block calculations?
11:09 < luke-jr> no
11:09 < luke-jr> nor even with LOT=1 unless you count BC/ST to be incompatible with normal BC
11:14 < queip> in here https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/myxe9z/taproot_activation_status/gvyluie/?context=3
11:14 < queip> allright, so we have actual facts-related disagreement here between two advanced developers
11:15 < queip> can you guys calmly and meritocratic analyze it, like gmax providing example of attack and luke showing is it countered in all cases
11:16 < queip> plz. think of the blockchain
11:19  * queip bets it comes to other definition of feasible situations, e.g. miners doing some attack that has no real incentives in it but yeah would mess up something. or this kind of thing
11:41 < queip> Emcy: can you perhaps grab a nice basket, get gmax, jump on the bike and "bring him home" to some middle ground to resolve their professional differences? :)
11:42 < Emcy> im not his mommy
11:42 < Emcy> whatever happened between them is not really my business
11:43 < queip> nothing more productive than devels discussing facts about possible attack
11:47 < jeremyrubin> [4/28/21 11:42] <Emcy> im not his mommy
11:47 < jeremyrubin> doxxed; anonimity set - 1
11:49 < queip> huh so gmax is on none of like 15 btc-rellated channels I know
11:49 < Emcy> im not his dad either
11:49 < jeremyrubin> he's on /r/btc, probably best way to reach him
11:49 < queip> lmao
11:50 < jeremyrubin> Emcy: are you any direct ancestor or decendant of Greg?
11:50 < queip> how about /r/bitcoin. Anyway, reddit is for normies
11:50 < jeremyrubin> I think he quit /r/bitcoin
11:50 < jeremyrubin> wait Emcy are you greg?
11:50 < queip> jeremyrubin: the post linked above is on /r/bitcoin
11:50 < Emcy> queip gmaxwell seems to have greatly withdrawn from 'the bitcoin community' because of this drama bullshit
11:50 < jeremyrubin> he quit after that post
11:50 < Emcy> my opinion is that thats everyones loss
11:51 < queip> jeremyrubin: if you have account on that shitplatform, perhaps you can ask them there for detailed explanation of the attack he says is possible
11:51 < faketoshi> Lol. The drama is literally greg and matt shitting the bed cos of an alternate release
11:51 < faketoshi> No reason to freak out whatsoever
11:51 < copumpkin> no, it's not greg and Matt. Greg stayed out of the entire thing until just recently
11:51 < jeremyrubin> He quit over what he felt was the platform inherently endorsing luke-jr by having an expert label
11:51 < queip> faketoshi: tbh they had some more reasons (being mitigated now I guess)
11:51 < faketoshi> The client was only released just recently
11:51 < faketoshi> Are you referring to drama other than the based client?
11:51 < queip> jeremyrubin: he has that flair too btw
11:51 < jeremyrubin> I think he felt that they should get rid of official esque endorsements
11:52 < jeremyrubin> I think he wants his removed too
11:52 < queip> he has it, but he hidden it
11:52 < faketoshi> yeah never seen it next to his UN
11:52 < jeremyrubin> yeah; it's an appeal to authority on any answer
11:52 < jeremyrubin> But in any case if you want to understand Greg don't let me summarize
11:53 < jeremyrubin> you can get it straight from the horse's <your choice or orfice>
11:53 < jeremyrubin> https://old.reddit.com/user/nullc
11:53 < queip> faketoshi: tbh this wasn't helping that Luke was calling out liers without detailed explanation (now "resolved" I guess;) nor usage of name without "-based" in it
11:53 < faketoshi> is it finally resolved?
11:53 < queip> *calling others liers
11:53 < faketoshi> I really don't get the argument for incompatibility that greg made and am willing to humble myself if someone will explain it to me
11:54 < queip> faketoshi: I think Luke is now trying to write something better than simply stating someone is lying
11:54 < faketoshi> during the ST period I am referring to btw
11:54 < faketoshi> I'm gonna write a write up today and be as balanced, neutral and "Adam Back"y as possible.
11:54 -!- graeme1 [~graeme@gateway/tor-sasl/welkinatdusk] has joined ##taproot-activation
11:54 < Emcy> faketoshi matt ried but you wernt having it
11:54 < queip> faketoshi: can someone with reddit accnt ask Gmax for exaplantion of the attack, in that linked topic? https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/myxe9z/taproot_activation_status/gvyluie/?context=3
11:54 < faketoshi> You mean in yesterday's clubhouse?
11:55 < Emcy> calling him a concern troll was unwarranted fyi
11:55 < faketoshi> He just went off on long rambles about unrellated stuff :/
11:55 < faketoshi> He is implying based client will steal coins. He's a troll.
11:55 < faketoshi> THAT is unwarranted
11:55 < Emcy> the fuck are you talking about
11:55 < queip> lol that is a bit trollish. could "both sides" relax and just present arguments about consensus
11:55 < queip> (if it happened, I wasn't in the applehouse)
11:56 < graeme1> faketoshi: would you be willing to update the README for the taproot forcing client? I think a separate version should be written for that client, not identical to core. I bring this up because it is on the landing page of the github
11:56 < faketoshi> It was a tweet
11:56 < faketoshi> I'd like to, but got so much else to do
11:56 < faketoshi> I don't want that to be taken as refusal btw
11:56 < queip> STALLING
11:56 < queip> you're a staller
11:56 < faketoshi> lol :P
11:56 < faketoshi> I will resign as BIP editor immediately
11:57  * queip (jk)
11:57 < graeme1> faketoshi: fair enough, it just strikes me as a bit lazy. you are creating an alternative release and not even the README file is relevant to its details
11:58 < faketoshi> u wanna do it?
11:58 < faketoshi> i'll merge it if you create the PR
11:58 < queip> change the names in docs? I will
11:58 < graeme1> no, I'm still deciding if I even want to run this client for myself
11:59 < faketoshi> I'd really appreciate more eyes on it though the changes to the core client are very few
11:59 -!- harding [quassel@newmail.dtrt.org] has joined ##taproot-activation
11:59 < harding> 08:50 <@michaelfolkson> queip: From what I recall there was no discussion of BH/MTP until after Speedy Trial was proposed. Everyone was happy with block heights when BIP 8 was revised
11:59 < faketoshi> additional gitian builds also would be useful. while it might not matter much while ST will likely succeed it will become a lot more important if it doesn't.
11:59 -!- criley_ [~criley@c-73-224-125-58.hsd1.fl.comcast.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
12:00 < graeme1> I'm not experienced in that manner, the only thing I've noticed is it doesn't have bech32m which I've already brought up, and I think the README should be more relevant
12:00 < Emcy> are you all gonna look like prize twats if taproots activates in a ST signalling period? Or will you claim that it only happened because of 'pressure from the based client' or some such
12:00 < queip> Emcy: why such antagonizing. who is "you all"
12:01 < harding> michaelfolkson: there's significant discussion of BIP9 in https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Taproot_activation_proposals&oldid=68228 (note, I have to link to an old version because luke-jr rephrased the current version to support his personal views).
12:01 < Emcy> https://taproot.watch all eyes on [assuming this site works]
12:03 < queip> this site is a bit confusing.  "Taproot cannot be locked in within this period".  it omits the important information that there will be next period(s) after that, and how many/how long
12:03 < copumpkin> submit a PR :)
12:03 < faketoshi> Emcy: false dichotomy
12:03 < faketoshi> It's there mainly for if ST doesn't work
12:04 < Emcy> yet youre doing it now
12:04 < faketoshi> If it works you can have fun laughing at us all you like
12:04 < faketoshi> Are you against preparation and fail safe's in general or.....
12:04 < Emcy> its not a fail safe when youre DOING IT NOW
12:04 < queip> Emcy: I think longer warning to malicious miners (if any) can be good, no?
12:04 < faketoshi> exactly it does nothing or it does something in the correct direction
12:05 < faketoshi> the animosity makes zero sense
12:05 < faketoshi> you aren't seriously saying back up plans shouldn't exist until they are needed?
12:05 < Emcy> i agree animosity makes zero sense, so why are your trying to barfight the miners asap
12:06 < queip> btw it is more than a plan, it's like a mine field put long long ahead around paris, just in case Maginot Line fails or is worked around
12:06 < faketoshi> That doesn't make any sense
12:06 -!- iohzrd [~iohzrd@static-198-54-131-88.cust.tzulo.com] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 3.1]
12:06 -!- iohzrd [~iohzrd@static-198-54-131-88.cust.tzulo.com] has joined ##taproot-activation
12:07 < Emcy> i dont like your motte & bailey
12:08 < queip> Emcy: you think warning miners about a deadline might work better if it is known long before, compared to knowing about it in shorter notice? considering less than ideal speed of diffusion of information into especially chinese part of the miners?
12:08 < Emcy> to be really fucking frank, your stupid fucking wargames have already caused way more damage than they were ever worth, at this juncture
12:09 -!- harding [quassel@newmail.dtrt.org] has left ##taproot-activation ["http://quassel-irc.org - Chat comfortably. Anywhere."]
12:09 < Emcy> if ST fails, there was always time to reasses and analyse why after. whats the fucking rush you mad man?
12:09 < Emcy> and yes even that might reasonable end up with just a flag day or something, if miners really are being intransigent
12:10 < Emcy> if there was such a huge fucking rush and clamour within 'the community', taproot could have been deployed like 2 years ago
12:10 < queip> question boils down to whether we lose effectiveness of flagday by making it at last moment
12:10 < queip> or maybe not at last moment, but at later time
12:10 < Emcy> pretending like theres such a pressing need now isnt credible
12:11 < jeremyrubin> Emcy: I think the opportunity cost argument is also compelling
12:11 < jeremyrubin> much else to do
12:11 -!- graeme1 [~graeme@gateway/tor-sasl/welkinatdusk] has quit [Quit: WeeChat 3.0]
12:11 < Emcy> i reiterate, invoking my 'bip148 veteran' status, i think you all are suffering from PTSD and jihan lives in your heads rent free.
12:12 < Emcy> and i think theres a bit of cargo culting going on amongst people who boiled that whole episode down to 'UASF made the soft fork rain from the sky'
12:12 < Emcy> i think this whole 'based client' business is ritualistic
12:16 < faketoshi> there isn't a rish look at the timeline
12:16 < faketoshi> like i said, all the bad faith is coming from either the absolutely normal antagonism between most core devs and luke which has been going on for years
12:16 < faketoshi> or people overreacting to the based client
12:17 < faketoshi> there is no war games or any of this shit Emcy
12:18 < faketoshi> jihan doesn't live in my head rent free, i just don't wanna open ourselves up to that again cos it's demonstrably a stupid way to go about SFs
12:18 < faketoshi> if it works anyway then cool, if it doesn't we have a real backup as opposed to "let's reasses and then probably try asking miners nicely again a third time"
12:18 < faketoshi> it's rational, as much as you hate it
12:18 < queip> Emcy: now you're making assuptions about others it seems lol. Im here to help to flagday when it is needed. before ST, after ST, dunno, I found out here mostly that ST even exists
12:19 < Emcy> i just said a flag day is acceptable if miners are being arses again. but ok ignore that
12:19 < queip> I think heaving software ready "just in case" can't hurt. you know besides devels namecalling while discusssing it
12:19 < faketoshi> i don't want a flag day i want a user enforced MASF (or 'UASF') as it's better and it already worked for segwit
12:20 < jeremyrubin> queip: you're arguing for something no one is arguing against
12:20 < jeremyrubin> queip: AJ and I even released some ST compatible UASF code
12:20 < Emcy> > it's better and it already worked for segwit
12:20 < Emcy> theres the cargo cult i mentioned
12:20 < jeremyrubin> queip: the main difference is if it needs to be pushed to users now or not
12:20 < jeremyrubin> queip: and ~most think it's premature
12:21 -!- pox [~pox@gateway/tor-sasl/pox] has quit [Quit: pox]
12:21 < queip> flagday in corepremature - probably yes.  creating a software and heaving it ready - I don't see any harm in that, I think it's a benefit, if there are reasons against it then what are they
12:22 < jeremyrubin> but why, e.g., put out a website saying if you run core you won't get taproot
12:22 < jeremyrubin> and can fall out of consensus
12:22 < jeremyrubin> "Unmodified Bitcoin Core includes the code to implement Taproot, but disabled. When Taproot activates, it will not enforce the new rules, and may fall out of consensus."
12:23 < queip> not sure at whom are you targeting this question, Im not putting any site up for example
12:24 < jeremyrubin> sure, but you're trying to figure out why people are upset
12:24 < jeremyrubin> I don't think anyone is upset with you queip
12:24 < jeremyrubin> they're upset with luke-jr
12:25 < queip> Emcy: what you think are the strongest measures "in case" that should be taken? What you see as the unneeded barfight with theoretically malicious miners
12:29 < queip> jeremyrubin: PR it
12:30 < jeremyrubin> Pr what?
12:30 < queip> Unmodified Bitcoin Core includes the code to implement Taproot, but disabled for now, activation might happen during Speedy Trails by around 2021-...-.... and if not then future versions might enforce it more directly.   ?
12:31 < queip> faketoshi: shouldn't BCbTFC switch to using identical params MTP/BH as BC, with LOT=true being the exact only difference?
12:33 < queip> like, concede that timing method discussion (while perhaps remembering to demand more consensus in future or something, but realistically it is done, and it is not directly creating any important exploit or anything realistic) and focus on LOT question, so in the good case they will be fore sure compatible
12:36 < jeremyrubin> queip: PR is where though?
12:36 < jeremyrubin> The site isn't a public repo afaiu
12:37 < faketoshi> queip: so we'd be enforcing signalling during last difficulty period of the 3 month window?
12:37 < faketoshi> if that's what you're suggesting that seems horribly rushed
12:38 < faketoshi> [12:20:35] <Emcy> theres the cargo cult i mentioned <- Doing what worked in the past is the scientific approach. Calling it cultish makes no sense.
12:38 < copumpkin> a single data point doesn't even make a line :P
12:39 < queip> faketoshi: well it depends on if the conditions are similar, or is it a fallacy to think same method will work. The argument to assume miners MIGHT be more normal this time, is that with SegWit they had a lot to gain directly, while this time it might be less obvious
12:39 < faketoshi> better than zero points of success :P
12:39 < queip> copumpkin: it makes all the lines ;)
12:39 < copumpkin> queip: proof that all activations methods work!!!
12:40 < queip> faketoshi: does Bitcoin Core have a date by which they reaaaaly want TR activated, even if ST fails? then draw our line at the same date.  I mean the final date, not just the one resulting from ST
12:40 < queip> I mean, ST drawn a line like "pls activate now by THIS time".  did someone yet set the final date "oh you better activate by THIS time or else"
12:43 < queip> the time should be... the last period resulting from the definition of this Bit reservation time, I guess?
12:45 -!- murchin [04355c72@4.53.92.114] has joined ##taproot-activation
12:45 -!- murchin is now known as murch
12:46 < faketoshi> I don't know
13:03 <@michaelfolkson> queip: Bitcoin Core is a loose collection of contributors. No one speaks for Core. I don't expect any serious discussions re a follow up to Speedy Trial until Speedy Trial has failed
13:04 <@michaelfolkson> queip: And as always that discussion will likely be around PR(s) that people have opened rather than some central planning to open particular PRs
13:05 < queip> ok I see. Anyway, there is a maximum timeline, the timeout of signalling bit reservation right>
13:05 < queip> ?
13:06 <@michaelfolkson> No I don't think so. I think the signaling bit 2 can be used until another soft fork wants to use that particular signaling bit
13:06 < queip> Im trying to propose to switch BCbTFC to be compatible with what realistically BC is doing/might want to do, with only difference being that BCbTFC sets lot=true already now, and announces it already now (hopefully without making not really correct claims re BC, we should clear it up imo)
13:08 <@michaelfolkson> Matt's Modern Soft Fork Activation had a maximum of 3.5 years. I don't think anyone would want any longer than that.
13:09 <@michaelfolkson> queip: We don't know what Bitcoin Core will do if Speedy Trial fails, we can only speculate
13:11 <@michaelfolkson> queip: The alternative release has considered what Bitcoin Core could do or is likely to do. There isn't any more to be done until Speedy Trial fails (which hopefully won't happen)
13:22 -!- realname192 [~real@37.163.130.32] has joined ##taproot-activation
13:23 -!- realname192 [~real@37.163.130.32] has quit [Client Quit]
13:25 -!- ironhelix [~d@unaffiliated/ironhelix] has joined ##taproot-activation
13:31 < robert_spigler> "Unmodified Bitcoin Core includes the code to implement Taproot, but disabled. When Taproot activates, it will not enforce the new rules, and may fall out of consensus."
13:31 < robert_spigler> Will this be changed when 0.21.1 is released?
13:32 -!- fiach_dubh [a2fd4716@162.253.71.22] has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
14:02 -!- murch [04355c72@4.53.92.114] has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
14:02 -!- mips [~mips@gateway/tor-sasl/mips] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
14:02 -!- mips [~mips@gateway/tor-sasl/mips] has joined ##taproot-activation
14:04 -!- fiach_dubh [a2fd4716@162.253.71.22] has joined ##taproot-activation
14:10 < luke-jr> queip: based is perfectly clear. "with" was also clear. the only deceptive naming is ST calling their client "Bitcoin Core 0.21.1" with no qualifiers
14:13 < luke-jr> Emcy: UASF is not wargames or barfight; it is simply the absence of a bug
14:14 < luke-jr> [19:22:13] <jeremyrubin> but why, e.g., put out a website saying if you run core you won't get taproot <-- because it's true
14:20 -!- Madars [~null@unaffiliated/madars] has joined ##taproot-activation
14:29 -!- DeanGuss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
14:30 -!- DeanGuss [~dean@gateway/tor-sasl/deanguss] has joined ##taproot-activation
14:50 -!- OP_NOP [OP_NOP@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/opnop/x-41418994] has joined ##taproot-activation
14:54 -!- duringo [ac625de3@172.98.93.227] has joined ##taproot-activation
15:15 -!- fiach_dubh [a2fd4716@162.253.71.22] has quit [Quit: Connection closed]
15:32 -!- RusAlex [~Chel@unaffiliated/rusalex] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
15:39 -!- RusAlex [~Chel@unaffiliated/rusalex] has joined ##taproot-activation
16:28 -!- criley [~criley@c-73-224-125-58.hsd1.fl.comcast.net] has joined ##taproot-activation
16:33 < queip> luke-jr: I think the objection is to that, that in some cases you seem to omit "based" from the name
16:35 < faketoshi> It's true, sometimes the "based" is omitted. I haven't bothered to trawl through the code and fix that.
16:35 < faketoshi> Because I truly believe no one is ever presented this client in a way that goes "bro, this is legit bitcoin core."
16:35 < faketoshi> No one running BIP148 thought it was vanilla core, and it was literally called "Bitcoin Core BIP148"
16:36 < faketoshi> It's upsetting to be called deceptive by Greg over it but at the same time I think he's just being silly.
16:38 < luke-jr> queip: Core+Taproot is also clear
16:39 < luke-jr> faketoshi: it's outright hypocrisy when they're called ST simply "Bitcoin Core"
16:40 < faketoshi> Well yes but I don't intend to cry about it like them. Releasing a client like we did is more effective than 10 years of IRC arguing.
16:41 < faketoshi> If ST fails people will just run our client while Jeremy and Greg and Matt and Emcy etc complain about it.
16:42 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
16:43 < Emcy> your self importance is fucking astounding, honestly
16:43 -!- shesek [~shesek@164.90.217.137] has joined ##taproot-activation
16:43 -!- shesek [~shesek@164.90.217.137] has quit [Changing host]
16:43 -!- shesek [~shesek@unaffiliated/shesek] has joined ##taproot-activation
16:43 < Emcy> the saviour of bitcoin right. jesus christ
16:44 < queip> luke-jr: Core+Taproot is not clear to me, there might be yet another attempt, e.g. exactly take current BC and add also   + if ((bh>681408) && (block.vbits[TR]==0)) return false; // must signal
16:45 < luke-jr> queip: there isn't tho
16:46 < queip> we all spent some time few days ago to have the descriptive BCbT[F]C, so if "we" agree here, and wider community wants it, I would rly recommend that. or - why not, just creates friction
16:46 < belcher> its cute they think they're some kind of leaders, when in reality they kicked and screamed to try to stop ST being added to core but in the end added ST to their own client
16:49 < queip> luke-jr: also, BC's version is also "Bitcoin Core + Taproot", just other way to get TR....
16:49 < queip> pls
17:02 -!- belcher_ [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has joined ##taproot-activation
17:03 -!- bcman [~quassel@192.252.212.46] has joined ##taproot-activation
17:03 -!- faketoshi [~quassel@192.252.212.46] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
17:05 -!- belcher [~belcher@unaffiliated/belcher] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
17:06 -!- belcher_ is now known as belcher
17:33 < bcman> Emcy: haha
17:34 -!- bcman is now known as faketoshi
17:34 < faketoshi> self importance. saviour. ok
17:34 < faketoshi> maybe i picked the right pseudonym after all then? :P
17:34 < faketoshi> come on bro, given the choice between core bikeshedding and an in the wild, already running client that does what lots of people already want regarding activation
17:35 < faketoshi> it's not self important to presume they will run based
17:35 < faketoshi> espeically given the risk to a decreasing minority who run the risk that the UASFers don't
17:36 < faketoshi> belcher: i'm not saying i'm a leader bro, core are the leaders and I'm watching them walk away
17:36 < faketoshi> lastly, i didn't say anything against ST that I know of? I don't think it's the right approach ofc but literally we have been telling people to run ST if they aren't sure
17:36 <@aj> "walking away" is what it looks like when a leader leads but you're not following?
17:36 < faketoshi> exactly
17:37 < faketoshi> idk people are intent on getting bent out of shape about the based client
17:37 < faketoshi> if ST works you could literally ignore it for the rest of your happy lives
17:38 < faketoshi> "lol thats cos u copied ST params" <- ....yes? because ofc we want to be compatible?
17:40 < faketoshi> this gives you the impression that we have God complexes and need to be taken down a peg or three
17:42 -!- proofofkeags [~proofofke@205.209.28.54] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
17:46 < Emcy> how much do you actually know about 2017 uasf
17:47 < Emcy> you said we should do it again because it activated segwit. thats actually not true. it never activated, it was just part of some pretty dense game theory going on around then
17:47 <@aj> Emcy: the current chain is valid according to bip141, bip148 and bip91 rules
17:48 < Emcy> youre pretty snide about for eg greg maxwell in general too, do you even know that it was him who blew the lid off of jihans little asicboost hack in the first place?
17:48 < Emcy> which is what lead eventually to the precious uasf initiative? or were you not around for that.
17:48 < Emcy> it does make me wonder
17:48 < jeremyrubin> http://www.math.rwth-aachen.de/~Timo.Hanke/AsicBoostWhitepaperrev5.pdf
17:49 < jeremyrubin> Timo announced this April 1st, 2016 to a mailing list
17:51 < belcher> jeremyrubin we're talking about this https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/013996.html
17:52 < belcher> the discovery that covert asicboost was coded into some asic miners and therefore they had a strong incentive to block segwit
17:52 < Emcy> jeremyrubin the technique was known [i think timons variant was 'overt asicboost'], it was gmax who realised that segwit would disallow a variant of 'covert asicboost' that jihan was probably using, and we know now that we was, and thus bitmmains confusing opposition to segwit suddenly crystallised
17:52 < jeremyrubin> Sure, I just mean I think people conflate ASICBOOST and patent issues in general with covert ASICBOOST
17:53 < Emcy> jeremyrubin yeah i was specifically referring to the covert variant wrt segwit
17:55 <@aj> covert asicboost is 3.4.1 "Merkle root collisions" in that paper, which says " We will not discuss the optimal solution in this paper, but further information can beprovided by the author on request."
17:59 < mol> aj, but bip148 was never merged into Core though?
18:01 <@aj> mol: so?
18:01 <@aj> mol: bip141 activation params are no longer in core either, for instance
18:01 < mol> aj i just want to be clarified what you said
18:02 < luke-jr> mol: Core doesn't define Bitcoin
21:39 -!- pox [~pox@gateway/tor-sasl/pox] has joined ##taproot-activation
22:06 -!- OP_NOP [OP_NOP@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/opnop/x-41418994] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
22:07 -!- cguida [~Adium@2601:282:200:ae00:a083:57e:580:7337] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
22:14 -!- ghost43 [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
22:14 -!- ghost43_ [~daer@gateway/tor-sasl/daer] has joined ##taproot-activation
22:51 -!- OP_NOP [OP_NOP@gateway/vpn/privateinternetaccess/opnop/x-41418994] has joined ##taproot-activation
--- Log closed Thu Apr 29 00:00:40 2021