Message-ID: <df906a63-6a13-c6f6-86c5-d08ecc84a71d@mattcorallo.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2021 16:55:18 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Michael Folkson <michaelfolkson@gmail.com>, Dave Harding <dave@dtrt.org>, 
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <CAFvNmHQKrw=UsUqNfBy2pO-LyfH=7VwO8z1VaHPvimXGReUyBQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFvNmHQKrw=UsUqNfBy2pO-LyfH=7VwO8z1VaHPvimXGReUyBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot activation proposal "Speedy Trial"
Precedence: list


On 3/6/21 14:56, Michael Folkson wrote:
> Hi Matt
> 
>  > I'm really unsure that three months is a short enough time window that there wouldn't be a material effort to split 
> the network with divergent consensus rules. Instead, a three month window is certainly long enough to organize and make 
> a lot of noise around such an effort, given BIP 148 was organized and reached its peak within a similar such window.
> 
> I'm not sure either. I can't control anyone other than myself. I think (and Luke has also stated on IRC) that trying a 
> UASF (LOT=true) during a "Speedy Trial" deployment would be crazy. I would certainly recommend no one tries that but I 
> can't stop anyone. I'll repeat that soft forks have and always will contain some limited chain split risk regardless of 
> activation mechanism. I think you are well intentioned but I'm not sure if you've fully grasped that yet. Maybe you have 
> and I'm missing something.
> 
>  > Worse, because the obvious alternative after a three month activation failure is a significant delay prior to 
> activation, the vocal UASF minority may be encouraged to pursue such a route to avoid such a delay.
> 
> Again I can only speak for myself but I wouldn't support a UASF until this "fail fast" Speedy Trial has completed and 
> failed. Luke agrees with that and other people (eg proofofkeags) on the ##uasf IRC channel have also supported this 
> "Speedy Trial" proposal. If you want me (or anyone else for that matter) to guarantee there won't be an attempted UASF 
> during a Speedy Trial deployment obviously nobody can do that. All I can say is that personally I won't support one.

That's great to hear.

> The parameters for Speedy Trial are being hammered out on IRC as we speak. I'd encourage you to engage with those 
> discussions. I'd really like to avoid a scenario where we have broad consensus on the details of Speedy Trial and then 
> you come out the woodwork weeks later with either an alternative proposal or a criticism for how the details of Speedy 
> Trial were finalized.
 >
> I've read your email as you're concerned about a UASF during a Speedy Trial deployment. Other than that I think (?) you 
> support it and you are free to join the discussion on IRC if you have particular views on parameters. Personally I don't 
> think those parameters should be chosen assuming there will be a UASF during the deployment but you can argue that case 
> on IRC if you wish. All proposals you have personally put forward suffer from chain split risk in the face of a 
> competing incompatible activation mechanism.

The conversations around the activation of Taproot have far outgrown a single IRC channel, let alone a single live 
conversation. Nor is having a discussion with under a few days latency "coming out of the wordwork weeks later". 
Frankly, I find this more than a little insulting. Bitcoin's consensus has never been decided in such a manner and I see 
no reason to start now.