From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
 Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2021 17:20:05 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10
References: <c35e1761-43ca-e157-6a5c-72d27f2c6c6e@mattcorallo.com>
In-Reply-To: <c35e1761-43ca-e157-6a5c-72d27f2c6c6e@mattcorallo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <202102281720.07392.luke@dashjr.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Straight Flag Day (Height) Taproot Activation
Precedence: list

On Sunday 28 February 2021 16:45:22 Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> many individuals are committing themselves to running
> incompatible consensus rules.

Yet that is exactly what you propose herein...

> Given this, it seems one way to keep the network in consensus would be to
> simply activate taproot through a traditional, no-frills, flag-day (or
> -height) activation with a flag day of roughly August, 2022.

Concept NACK. This still has the same problems BIP149 would have had, as I 
just reminded in my last email to this ML:

1) Such a chain does not indicate activation at all, leaving it unresolved and 
debatable whether activation has occurred or not.
2) As a result, it is also impractical to intentionally reject the softfork 
should anyone decide to do so.

Signalling is important to activation.

> 2) The high node-level-adoption bar is one of the most critical goals, and
> the one most currently in jeopardy in a BIP 8 approach.

It is only jeopardized if people continue to push for a LOT=False deployment 
(or this new proposal of yours).

BIP 8 itself, with LOT=True, does not create such a risk at all.

> Users demanding alternative consensus rules (or, worse, configuration flags
> to change consensus rules on individual nodes with an expectation of use)
> makes this very complicated in the context of BIP 8.

Alternative consensus rules is exactly what you are proposing here.

More alternative rules to choose from just increase the risks. Two options is 
annoying, but adding a third for no reason is just absurd.

Luke