Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTFKbjg3yDPnrmL8TgtypirB_fDMMJD=AJxjYav51hmEAw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 09:13:00 -0500
Message-Id: <E3E39A9A-82B4-4096-9DA1-A4D758CC7B68@mattcorallo.com>
References: <CALqxMTFKbjg3yDPnrmL8TgtypirB_fDMMJD=AJxjYav51hmEAw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
Cc: Michael Folkson <michaelfolkson@gmail.com>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Yesterday's Taproot activation meeting on
	lockinontimeout (LOT)
Precedence: list

(Also in response to ZMN...)

Bitcoin Core has a long-standing policy of not shipping options which shoot y=
ourself in the foot. I=E2=80=99d be very disappointed if that changed now. P=
eople are of course more than welcome to run such software themselves, but I=
 anticipate the loud minority on Twitter and here aren=E2=80=99t processing e=
nough transactions or throwing enough financial weight behind their decision=
 for them to do anything but just switch back if they find themselves on a c=
hain with no blocks.

There=E2=80=99s nothing we can (or should) do to prevent people from threate=
ning to (and possibly) forking themselves off of bitcoin, but that doesn=E2=80=
=99t mean we should encourage it either. The work Bitcoin Core maintainers a=
nd developers do is to recommend courses of action which they believe have r=
easonable levels of consensus and are technically sound. Luckily, there=E2=80=
=99s strong historical precedent for people deciding to run other software a=
round forks, so misinterpretation is not very common (just like there=E2=80=99=
s strong historical precedent for miners not unilaterally deciding forks in t=
he case of Segwit).

Matt

> On Feb 19, 2021, at 07:08, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:
>> would dev consensus around releasing LOT=3Dfalse be considered as "develo=
pers forcing their views on users"?
>=20
> given there are clearly people of both views, or for now don't care
> but might later, it would minimally be friendly and useful if
> bitcoin-core has a LOT=3Dtrue option - and that IMO goes some way to
> avoid the assumptive control via defaults.

> Otherwise it could be read as saying "developers on average
> disapprove, but if you, the market disagree, go figure it out for
> yourself" which is not a good message for being defensive and avoiding
> mis-interpretation of code repositories or shipped defaults as
> "control".