path: root/97/d0201358486033cc9e2051acb5b01996d6e3db

Return-Path: <eric@voskuil.org>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D1FCC0001
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon,  8 Mar 2021 14:13:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C7D047121
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon,  8 Mar 2021 14:13:49 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
 HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001]
 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id HXl4EUP8AsiI
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon,  8 Mar 2021 14:13:46 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-pg1-x529.google.com (mail-pg1-x529.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::529])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDA9E470A7
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon,  8 Mar 2021 14:13:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pg1-x529.google.com with SMTP id a4so6486678pgc.11
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 08 Mar 2021 06:13:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
 h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version
 :thread-index:content-language;
 bh=yBzfum3HKIUzPOZyQqtuQfxCnQxuXAYnjEaPi0i67+k=;
 b=odzPjxHH/gr/1X4eNnf2PLDeWY5jHEvCFYYQ1C6QvwfejBm5y+w/MBNPA6YjzCATMS
 kXT7d5zG9LjytkyIsUlIa9YcgjtW/h+O/dAwhHWpgV0kdNExkU2sUrBRmFGvdkdfZqXN
 E4XMsy/JBDfvr/0tpdE5sD33eM+/scM0q5pngp3s9Sn0Lxiht5Q9exjIkaiWA7IRIxkd
 o5+z4IOFLW2ieC1ROcbv4B1yYrXNjww4uQBylTedUCXBTBJaSOrbFWY4bhtcp3zf1uF1
 LOguUMHcyQDUQqVqdQ7aJ6GO1iDjxpP1khGpw7xAo+bMYScWG4z4TSmSWnKJUtB4pE1x
 tLUg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
 h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date
 :message-id:mime-version:thread-index:content-language;
 bh=yBzfum3HKIUzPOZyQqtuQfxCnQxuXAYnjEaPi0i67+k=;
 b=R2EK8yqjiVESblkZ/Hq0Nxof7pG54lV7eL6rAvYRmwcf/WZFIpYqtUzib4m4Tk4avT
 fKWjY/9GUO/5C8leNQpIgW1w1zvSCpyRFwSzEIOnrv6Szxg9VieBKW5IcoFgbyL4ZMf1
 5Ba8Co97GwnSIciIrE7X/ay3+HYLOn10dahwooP9bsuWZfUlzJRXaXMAdJsFSqA43fcJ
 aGzOMJjmG1jmZCD/itdUM4/jUpQmFqCh9znm+1H7JPAre9QoTIKB3IIjIC+E3HfK8WK6
 hwtSJe3Cf24YCw1Q2t7MTIHCPFfi9UUwQv6Zw9m2fj7+AvvGzW4uj968EUXe6bCpzhKQ
 5feA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532Wt2ujOQxWKy4iDBBRdy5womj2Qo178flIilYVFsNc/uCV132e
 314kkc1lIEsRLh9Z3gbscMyhqA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyVP6jKIyrGqwjBT+u8SyvDe5M4732XU0pz6koL8KxEQU0dt3bIQDs1e2J1adXcrV1O77ONCQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:a512:: with SMTP id n18mr20798986pgf.198.1615212825179; 
 Mon, 08 Mar 2021 06:13:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ERICDESKTOP ([2601:600:9c00:1d0::b000])
 by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v14sm11692021pju.19.2021.03.08.06.13.44
 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
 Mon, 08 Mar 2021 06:13:44 -0800 (PST)
From: <eric@voskuil.org>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?'Jorge_Tim=C3=B3n'?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>,
 "'Bitcoin Protocol Discussion'" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
 "'Anthony Towns'" <aj@erisian.com.au>
References: <c35e1761-43ca-e157-6a5c-72d27f2c6c6e@mattcorallo.com>
 <20210303145902.cl4mzg6l7avjboil@erisian.com.au>
 <281679eb-860b-c6cb-7e7a-5ae28b60f149@mattcorallo.com>
 <20210306113326.mrftlkmmloy2dsag@erisian.com.au>
 <CABm2gDpky7W-e_Vp5bFZ-k+y40-wFsNZ_-Cj-JNxi7PjTB2nxQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDpky7W-e_Vp5bFZ-k+y40-wFsNZ_-Cj-JNxi7PjTB2nxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 06:13:44 -0800
Message-ID: <011601d71425$40221580$c0664080$@voskuil.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0117_01D713E2.3200F860"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQFl55qKIqsoxHhUjfhG81x6LAbnOgLfavyCA3zpG7UBGI8lPgK9NEvOqwrYlKA=
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Straight Flag Day (Height) Taproot Activation
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2021 14:13:49 -0000

This is a multipart message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0117_01D713E2.3200F860
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

One should not assume that those trying to avoid a chain split are =
against Taproot.

=20

There is a concerning widespread misperception in the community at large =
that soft forks are inherently =E2=80=9Cbackward compatible=E2=80=9D. To =
many people this seems to mean that, even without hash power =
enforcement, activation will not create a chain split. This is no doubt =
reinforced by loose wording in past proposals, such as the unqualified, =
=E2=80=9CAs a soft fork, older software will continue to operate without =
modification.=E2=80=9D (BIP141). If operating means not crashing, then =
hard forks also qualify. Many people do not understand that hash power =
enforcement is also required for a soft fork to avoid a chain split.

=20

This misperception has also been fed by devs who should know better =
claiming that BIP16 was not signaled by supermajority hash power before =
it was activated. The only distinction being that an *automated* =
activation method had not yet been developed. Starting with BIP16 *all =
active soft forks* have been activated by supermajority hash power =
signaling. I was told publicly by someone who should certainly know =
better that SegWit missed its BIP9 activation window and that BIP9 =
failed. Yet SegWit activated under BIP9 2.5 months before its activation =
window closed. It never entered its FAILED state and remains in its =
ACTIVE state (BIP90 being presumed to be merely a code optimization). =
This type of misinformation is a root cause of much of the conflict.

=20

Yes, some people threatened to split themselves off with BIP148, and yes =
miners used BIP91 to accelerate SegWit enforcement, preventing that =
split well before the SegWit the activation window was set to expire. So =
those people claim BIP9 failed. It=E2=80=99s a false narrative. BIP9 =
could have failed, but did not. Soft fork activation could be =
unsupported by miners, but to date no such activation attempt has =
failed. No doubt it will someday. But why are people picking a fight =
where there isn=E2=80=99t one.

=20

This should not about who gets to =E2=80=9Cdecide the rules=E2=80=9D, =
but that is exactly what it has become. It=E2=80=99s the only =
explanation for the conflict. Otherwise there does not appear to be any =
whatsoever. Miner activation is used if at all possible because it =
avoids a chain split. It=E2=80=99s as simple as that. Anyone can of =
course decide what rules they run. But telling them that they can do so =
without splitting is flatly irresponsible. If it comes to that, inform =
people properly and let them decide.

=20

The reason for BIP8 is clearly to codify activation without hash power =
support. You are right that BIP8(LOT=3Dfalse) is just BIP9. The other =
differences are immaterial. Given that there are other differences, it =
seems advisable to use what has already been coded, tested, deployed, =
and successful in the past. It=E2=80=99s also understandable that many =
devs no not want to be responsible for shipping code to large numbers of =
people who are misinformed about its behavior, potentially causing a =
chain split and loss of both money and faith in the system.

=20

If one needs to consider this a question of who gets to decide, =
it=E2=80=99s not clear to me why one would side with exchanges over =
miners given that the latter are able to prevent a chain split. HODLer =
nodes are non-economic, to the extent they even exist. This =
isn=E2=80=99t a David vs. Goliath scenario, and even if it was, the =
supposed giant appears to overwhelmingly support Taproot.

=20

e

=20

From: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org> On =
Behalf Of Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev
Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 4:52 AM
To: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Straight Flag Day (Height) Taproot Activation

=20

Concept nack.

This has no advantage over bip8(true).

Bip9(false) is just bip9.

Thr only reasonable argument against bip8(true) is "some people may do =
bip8(false) instead", which is a stypid argument applyable to any =
activation method.

=20

People against taproot should want code to forbid its activation rather =
than limiting themselves to suport bip9/bip8(false) and hope it doesn't =
get activated it.

=20

Some other arguments seem to be based on the wrong assumption that =
miners should decide the rules.

=20

Thisproposal solves nothing, just adds to the noise and thus is really =
disappointing.

=20


------=_NextPart_000_0117_01D713E2.3200F860
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" =
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8"><meta =
name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 15 (filtered =
medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
	{font-family:"Cambria Math";
	panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Calibri;
	panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0in;
	font-size:11.0pt;
	font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
	{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
	font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
	color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;
	font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
	{size:8.5in 11.0in;
	margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
	{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
<o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue =
vlink=3Dpurple style=3D'word-wrap:break-word'><div =
class=3DWordSection1><p class=3DMsoNormal>One should not assume that =
those trying to avoid a chain split are against =
Taproot.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal>There is a concerning widespread misperception in the =
community at large that soft forks are inherently =E2=80=9Cbackward =
compatible=E2=80=9D. To many people this seems to mean that, even =
without hash power enforcement, activation will not create a chain =
split. This is no doubt reinforced by loose wording in past proposals, =
such as the unqualified, =E2=80=9CAs a soft fork, older software will =
continue to operate without modification.=E2=80=9D (BIP141). If =
operating means not crashing, then hard forks also qualify. Many people =
do not understand that hash power enforcement is also required for a =
soft fork to avoid a chain split.<o:p></o:p></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal>This =
misperception has also been fed by devs who should know better claiming =
that BIP16 was not signaled by supermajority hash power before it was =
activated. The only distinction being that an *<b>automated</b>* =
activation method had not yet been developed. Starting with BIP16 =
*<b>all active soft forks</b>* have been activated by supermajority hash =
power signaling. I was told publicly by someone who should certainly =
know better that SegWit missed its BIP9 activation window and that BIP9 =
failed. Yet SegWit activated under BIP9 2.5 months before its activation =
window closed. It never entered its FAILED state and remains in its =
ACTIVE state (BIP90 being presumed to be merely a code optimization). =
This type of misinformation is a root cause of much of the =
conflict.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal>Yes, some people threatened to split themselves off =
with BIP148, and yes miners used BIP91 to accelerate SegWit enforcement, =
preventing that split well before the SegWit the activation window was =
set to expire. So those people claim BIP9 failed. It=E2=80=99s a false =
narrative. BIP9 could have failed, but did not. Soft fork activation =
could be unsupported by miners, but to date no such activation attempt =
has failed. No doubt it will someday. But why are people picking a fight =
where there isn=E2=80=99t one.<o:p></o:p></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal>This should =
not about who gets to =E2=80=9Cdecide the rules=E2=80=9D, but that is =
exactly what it has become. It=E2=80=99s the only explanation for the =
conflict. Otherwise there does not appear to be any whatsoever. Miner =
activation is used if at all possible because it avoids a chain split. =
It=E2=80=99s as simple as that. Anyone can of course decide what rules =
they run. But telling them that they can do so without splitting is =
flatly irresponsible. If it comes to that, inform people properly and =
let them decide.<o:p></o:p></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal>The reason =
for BIP8 is clearly to codify activation without hash power support. You =
are right that BIP8(LOT=3Dfalse) is just BIP9. The other differences are =
immaterial. Given that there are other differences, it seems advisable =
to use what has already been coded, tested, deployed, and successful in =
the past. It=E2=80=99s also understandable that many devs no not want to =
be responsible for shipping code to large numbers of people who are =
misinformed about its behavior, potentially causing a chain split and =
loss of both money and faith in the system.<o:p></o:p></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p><p class=3DMsoNormal>If one needs =
to consider this a question of who gets to decide, it=E2=80=99s not =
clear to me why one would side with exchanges over miners given that the =
latter are able to prevent a chain split. HODLer nodes are non-economic, =
to the extent they even exist. This isn=E2=80=99t a David vs. Goliath =
scenario, and even if it was, the supposed giant appears to =
overwhelmingly support Taproot.<o:p></o:p></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal>e<o:p></o:p></p><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p><div =
style=3D'border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in =
0in 0in'><p class=3DMsoNormal><b>From:</b> bitcoin-dev =
&lt;bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org&gt; <b>On Behalf Of =
</b>Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, March 8, =
2021 4:52 AM<br><b>To:</b> Anthony Towns &lt;aj@erisian.com.au&gt;; =
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion =
&lt;bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org&gt;<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: =
[bitcoin-dev] Straight Flag Day (Height) Taproot =
Activation<o:p></o:p></p></div><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p><div><p class=3DMsoNormal>Concept =
nack.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=3DMsoNormal>This has no advantage over =
bip8(true).<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=3DMsoNormal>Bip9(false) is =
just bip9.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=3DMsoNormal>Thr only =
reasonable argument against bip8(true) is &quot;some people may do =
bip8(false) instead&quot;, which is a stypid argument applyable to any =
activation method.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p></div><div><p =
class=3DMsoNormal>People against taproot should want code to forbid its =
activation rather than limiting themselves to suport bip9/bip8(false) =
and hope it doesn't get activated it.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p></div><div><p =
class=3DMsoNormal>Some other arguments seem to be based on the wrong =
assumption that miners should decide the =
rules.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p></div><div><p =
class=3DMsoNormal>Thisproposal solves nothing, just adds to the noise =
and thus is really disappointing.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p =
class=3DMsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p></div></div></div></body></html>
------=_NextPart_000_0117_01D713E2.3200F860--