1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
|
Return-Path: <rusty@ozlabs.org>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68834C000A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 6 Apr 2021 23:58:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 463C383EE9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 6 Apr 2021 23:58:18 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.097
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=1.049,
HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001,
SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id yF5d5FKl47Ux
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 6 Apr 2021 23:58:17 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: delayed 00:09:04 by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::2])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EA8883EC0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 6 Apr 2021 23:58:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by ozlabs.org (Postfix, from userid 1011)
id 4FFPPf1c1Nz9sV5; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 09:49:10 +1000 (AEST)
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit.edu>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
Bitcoin development mailing list <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAD5xwhiXE=yJFi+9aZQqMOCaiUrJ_UEvcESR3E0j2SA1RnbqmA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD5xwhiXE=yJFi+9aZQqMOCaiUrJ_UEvcESR3E0j2SA1RnbqmA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2021 13:55:21 +0930
Message-ID: <874kgkkpji.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] March 23rd 2021 Taproot Activation Meeting Notes
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: Tue, 06 Apr 2021 23:58:18 -0000
Jeremy via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> writes:
> We had a very productive meeting today. Here is a summary of the meeting --
> I've done my best to
> summarize in an unbiased way. Thank you to everyone who attended.
>
> 1. On the use of a speedy trial variant:
>
> - There are no new objections to speedy trial generally.
> - There is desire to know if Rusty retracts or reaffirms his NACK in light
> of the responses.
I do not withdraw my NACK (and kudos: there have been few attempts to
pressure me to do so!).
The core question always was: what do we do if miners fail to activate?
Luke-Jr takes the approach that "we (i.e developers) ensure it activates
anyway". I take the approach that "the users must make a direct
intervention". Speedy Trial takes the approach that "let's pretend we
didn't *actually* ask them".
It's totally a political approach, to avoid facing the awkward question.
Since I believe that such prevaricating makes a future crisis less
predictable, I am forced to conclude that it makes bitcoin less robust.
Personally, I think the compromise position is using LOT=false and
having those such as Luke and myself continue working on a LOT=true
branch for future consideration. It's less than optimal, but I
appreciate that people want Taproot activated more than they want
the groundwork future upgrades.
I hope that helps,
Rusty.
|
