{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcu","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcu","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2021-02-18\n📝 Original message:You say \"short term PR\", I say \"risking millions of user dollars\".\n\nOn 2/18/21 09:51, Michael Folkson wrote:\n\u003e  \u003e getting unlucky and hitting a 4-block reorg that happens to include a double-spend and some PR around an exchange \n\u003e losing millions would be worse than having Taproot is good.\n\u003e \n\u003e We are at the point where an upgrade that confers significant long term benefits for the whole ecosystem is not as \n\u003e important as bad short term PR? That is a depressing outlook if that is what you believe.\n\u003e \n\u003e Even in that worst case scenario exchanges should not lose money if they are competent and are able to manage that risk.\n\u003e \n\u003e On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 2:42 PM Matt Corallo \u003clf-lists at mattcorallo.com \u003cmailto:lf-lists at mattcorallo.com\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e     We've had several softforks in Bitcoin which, through the course of their activation, had a several-block reorg. That\n\u003e     should be indication enough that we need to very carefully consider activation to ensure we reduce the risk of that as\n\u003e     much as absolutely possible. Again, while I think Taproot is a huge improvement and am looking forward to being able to\n\u003e     use it, getting unlucky and hitting a 4-block reorg that happens to include a double-spend and some PR around an\n\u003e     exchange losing millions would be worse than having Taproot is good.\n\u003e \n\u003e     Matt\n\u003e \n\u003e     On 2/18/21 09:26, Michael Folkson wrote:\n\u003e      \u003e Thanks for your response Matt. It is a fair challenge. There is always going to be an element of risk with soft\n\u003e     forks,\n\u003e      \u003e all we can do is attempt to minimize that risk. I would argue that risk has been minimized for Taproot.\n\u003e      \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e You know (better than I do in fact) that Bitcoin (and layers built on top of it) greatly benefit from upgrades\n\u003e     such as\n\u003e      \u003e Taproot. To say we shouldn't do Taproot or any future soft forks because there is a small but real risk of chain\n\u003e     splits\n\u003e      \u003e I think is shortsighted. Indeed I think even if we collectively decided not to do any future soft fork upgrades ever\n\u003e      \u003e again on this mailing list that wouldn't stop soft fork attempts from other people in future.\n\u003e      \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e I don't think there is anything else we can do to minimize that risk for the Taproot soft fork at this point\n\u003e     though I'm\n\u003e      \u003e open to ideas. To reiterate that risk will never be zero. I don't think I see Bitcoin as fragile as you seem to\n\u003e     (though\n\u003e      \u003e admittedly you have a much better understanding than me of what happened in 2017).\n\u003e      \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e The likely scenario for the Taproot soft fork is LOT turns out to be entirely irrelevant and miners activate Taproot\n\u003e      \u003e before it becomes relevant. And even the unlikely worst case scenario would only cause short term disruption and\n\u003e      \u003e wouldn't kill Bitcoin long term.\n\u003e      \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 2:01 PM Matt Corallo \u003clf-lists at mattcorallo.com \u003cmailto:lf-lists at mattcorallo.com\u003e\n\u003e     \u003cmailto:lf-lists at mattcorallo.com \u003cmailto:lf-lists at mattcorallo.com\u003e\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e      \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e     If the eventual outcome is that different implementations (that have material *transaction processing* userbases,\n\u003e      \u003e     and I’m not sure to what extent that’s true with Knots) ship different consensus rules, we should stop here\n\u003e     and not\n\u003e      \u003e     activate Taproot. Seriously.\n\u003e      \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e     Bitcoin is a consensus system. The absolute worst outcome at all possible is to have it fall out of consensus.\n\u003e      \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e     Matt\n\u003e      \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e     On Feb 18, 2021, at 08:11, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e     \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e     \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e     \n\u003e      \u003e\u003e     Right, that is one option. Personally I would prefer a Bitcoin Core release sets LOT=false (based on what I have\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e     heard from Bitcoin Core contributors) and a community effort releases a version with LOT=true. I don't think\n\u003e     users\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e     should be forced to choose something they may have no context on before they are allowed to use Bitcoin Core.\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e     My current understanding is that roasbeef is planning to set LOT=false on btcd (an alternative protocol\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e     implementation to Bitcoin Core) and Luke Dashjr hasn't yet decided on Bitcoin Knots.\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e     On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 11:52 AM ZmnSCPxj \u003cZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com \u003cmailto:ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com\u003e\n\u003e     \u003cmailto:ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com \u003cmailto:ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com\u003e\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         Good morning all,\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \"An activation mechanism is a consensus change like any other change, can be contentious like any other\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         change, and we must resolve it like any other change. Otherwise we risk arriving at the darkest timeline.\"\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e Who's we here?\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e Release both and let the network decide.\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         A thing that could be done, without mandating either LOT=true or LOT=false, would be to have a release that\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         requires a `taprootlot=1` or `taprootlot=0` and refuses to start if the parameter is not set.\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         This assures everyone that neither choice is being forced on users, and instead what is being forced on\n\u003e     users,\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         is for users to make that choice themselves.\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         Regards,\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         ZmnSCPxj\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 3:08 AM Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e     \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e Thanks for your response Ariel. It would be useful if you responded to specific points I have made\n\u003e     in the\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         mailing list post or at least quote these ephemeral \"people\" you speak of. I don't know if you're responding\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         to conversation on the IRC channel or on social media etc.\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e The argument comes from a naive assumption that users MUST upgrade to the choice that is submitted\n\u003e     into\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         code. But in fact this isn't true and some voices in this discussion need to be more humble about what users\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         must or must not run.\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e I personally have never made this assumption. Of course users aren't forced to run any particular\n\u003e     software\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         version, quite the opposite. Defaults set in software versions matter though as many users won't change\n\u003e     them.\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e Does no one realize that it is a very possible outcome that if LOT=true is released there may be\n\u003e     only a\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         handful of people that begin running it while everyone else delays their upgrade (with the very good\n\u003e     reason of\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         not getting involved in politics) and a year later those handful of people just become stuck at the\n\u003e     moment of\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         MUST_SIGNAL, unable to mine new blocks?\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e It is a possible outcome but the likely outcome is that miners activate Taproot before LOT is even\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         relevant. I think it is prudent to prepare for the unlikely but possible outcome that miners fail to\n\u003e     activate\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         and hence have this discussion now rather than be unprepared for that eventuality. If LOT is set to\n\u003e     false in a\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         software release there is the possibility (T2 in\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018380.html\n\u003e     \u003chttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018380.html\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003chttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018380.html\n\u003e     \u003chttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018380.html\u003e\u003e) of individuals or a\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         proportion of the community changing LOT to true. In that sense setting LOT=false in a software release\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         appears to be no more safe than LOT=true.\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e The result: a wasted year of waiting and a minority of people who didn't want to be lenient with\n\u003e     miners\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         by default.\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e There is the (unlikely but possible) possibility of a wasted year if LOT is set to false and miners fail\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         to activate. I'm not convinced by this perception that LOT=true is antagonistic to miners. I actually\n\u003e     think it\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         offers them clarity on what will happen over a year time period and removes the need for coordinated or\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         uncoordinated community UASF efforts on top of LOT=false.\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e An activation mechanism is a consensus change like any other change, can be contentious like any other\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         change, and we must resolve it like any other change. Otherwise we risk arriving at the darkest timeline.\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e I don't know what you are recommending here to avoid \"this darkest timeline\". Open discussions have\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         occurred and are continuing and in my mailing list post that you responded to **I recommended we propose\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         LOT=false be set in protocol implementations such as Bitcoin Core**. I do think this apocalyptic language\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         isn't particularly helpful. In an open consensus system discussion is healthy, we should prepare for bad or\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         worst case scenarios in advance and doing so is not antagonistic or destructive. Mining pools have pledged\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         support for Taproot but we don't build secure systems based on pledges of support, we build them to minimize\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         trust in any human actors. We can be grateful that people like Alejandro have worked hard on\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e taprootactivation.com \u003chttp://taprootactivation.com\u003e \u003chttp://taprootactivation.com\n\u003e     \u003chttp://taprootactivation.com\u003e\u003e (and this effort has informed the discussion) without\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         taking pledges of support as cast iron guarantees.\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e TL;DR It sounds like you agree with my recommendation to set LOT=false in protocol implementations in my\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         email :)\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 5:43 AM Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces \u003carielluaces at gmail.com\n\u003e     \u003cmailto:arielluaces at gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003cmailto:arielluaces at gmail.com \u003cmailto:arielluaces at gmail.com\u003e\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e Something what strikes me about the conversation is the emotion surrounding the letters UASF.\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e It appears as if people discuss UASF as if it's a massive tidal wave of support that is\n\u003e     inevitable, like\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         we saw during segwit activation. But the actual definition is \"any activation that is not a MASF\".\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e A UASF can consist of a single node, ten nodes, a thousand, half of all nodes, all business' nodes, or\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         even all the non mining nodes. On another dimension it can have zero mining support, 51% support, 49%\n\u003e     support,\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         or any support right up against a miner activation threshold.\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e Hell a UASF doesn't even need code or even a single node running as long as it exists as a possibility\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         in people's minds.\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e The only thing a UASF doesn't have is miner support above an agreed activation threshold (some number\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         above %51).\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e I say this because it strikes me when people say that they are for LOT=true with the logic that\n\u003e     since a\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         UASF is guaranteed to happen then it's better to just make it default from the beginning. Words like\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         coordination and safety are sometimes sprinkled into the argument.\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e The argument comes from a naive assumption that users MUST upgrade to the choice that is submitted\n\u003e     into\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         code. But in fact this isn't true and some voices in this discussion need to be more humble about what users\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         must or must not run.\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e Does no one realize that it is a very possible outcome that if LOT=true is released there may be\n\u003e     only a\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         handful of people that begin running it while everyone else delays their upgrade (with the very good\n\u003e     reason of\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         not getting involved in politics) and a year later those handful of people just become stuck at the\n\u003e     moment of\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         MUST_SIGNAL, unable to mine new blocks? Or attracting a minority of miners, activating, and forking off\n\u003e     into a\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         minority fork. Then a lot=false could be started that ends up activating the feature now that the stubborn\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         option has ran its course.\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e The result: a wasted year of waiting and a minority of people who didn't want to be lenient with\n\u003e     miners\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         by default. The chains could be called BitcoinLenient and BitcoinStubborn.\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e How is that strictly safer or more coordinated?\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e I may be in the minority, or maybe a silent majority, or maybe a majority that just hasn't considered\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         this as a choice but honestly if there is contention about whether we're going to be stubborn or lenient\n\u003e     with\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         miners for Taproot and in the future then I prefer to just not activate anything at all. I'm fine for\n\u003e     calling\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         bitcoin ossified, accepting that segwit is Bitcoin's last network upgrade. Taproot is amazing but no new\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         feature is worth a network split down the middle.\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e Maybe in 10 or 20 years, when other blockchains implement features like Taproot and many more, we will\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         become envious enough to put aside our differences on how to behave towards miners and finally activate\n\u003e     Taproot.\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e An activation mechanism is a consensus change like any other change, can be contentious like any other\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         change, and we must resolve it like any other change. Otherwise we risk arriving at the darkest timeline.\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e Cheers\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e On Feb 17, 2021, at 7:05 AM, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e     \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e Yesterday (February 16th) we held a second meeting on Taproot\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e activation on IRC which again was open to all. Despite what appeared\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e to be majority support for LOT=false over LOT=true in the first\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e meeting I (and others) thought the arguments had not been explored in\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e depth and that we should have a follow up meeting almost entirely\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e focused on whether LOT (lockinontimeout) should be set to true or\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e false.\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e The meeting was announced here:\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018380.html\n\u003e     \u003chttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018380.html\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003chttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018380.html\n\u003e     \u003chttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018380.html\u003e\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e In that mailing list post I outlined the arguments for LOT=true (T1 to\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e T6) and arguments for LOT=false (F1 to F6) in their strongest form I\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e could. David Harding responded with an additional argument for\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e LOT=false (F7) here:\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018415.html\n\u003e     \u003chttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018415.html\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003chttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018415.html\n\u003e     \u003chttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018415.html\u003e\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e These meetings are very challenging given they are open to all, you\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e don’t know who will attend and you don’t know most people’s views in\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e advance. I tried to give time for both the LOT=true arguments and the\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e LOT=false arguments to be discussed as I knew there was support for\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e both. We only tried evaluating which had more support and which had\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e more strong opposition towards the end of the meeting.\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e The conversation log is here:\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e http://gnusha.org/taproot-activation/2021-02-16.log\n\u003e     \u003chttp://gnusha.org/taproot-activation/2021-02-16.log\u003e \u003chttp://gnusha.org/taproot-activation/2021-02-16.log\n\u003e     \u003chttp://gnusha.org/taproot-activation/2021-02-16.log\u003e\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e (If you are so inclined you can watch a video of the meeting here.\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e Thanks to the YouTube account “Bitcoin” for setting up the livestream:\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpl5q1ovMLM \u003chttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpl5q1ovMLM\u003e\n\u003e     \u003chttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpl5q1ovMLM \u003chttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpl5q1ovMLM\u003e\u003e)\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e A summary of the meeting was provided by Luke Dashjr on Mastodon here:\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e https://bitcoinhackers.org/@lukedashjr/105742918779234566\n\u003e     \u003chttps://bitcoinhackers.org/@lukedashjr/105742918779234566\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003chttps://bitcoinhackers.org/@lukedashjr/105742918779234566\n\u003e     \u003chttps://bitcoinhackers.org/@lukedashjr/105742918779234566\u003e\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e Today's #Bitcoin #Taproot meeting was IMO largely unproductive, but we\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e did manage to come to consensus on everything but LockinOnTimeout.\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e Activation height range: 693504-745920\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e MASF threshold: 1815/2016 blocks (90%)\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e Keep in mind only ~100 people showed for the meetings, hardly\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e representative of the entire community.\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e So, these details remain JUST a proposal for now.\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e It seems inevitable that there won't be consensus on LOT.\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e Everyone will have to choose for himself. :/\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e Personally I agree with most of this. I agree that there wasn’t\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e overwhelming consensus for either LOT=true or LOT=false. However, from\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e my perspective there was clearly more strong opposition (what would\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e usually be deemed a NACK in Bitcoin Core review terminology) from\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e Bitcoin Core contributors, Lightning developers and other community\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e members against LOT=true than there was for LOT=false. Andrew Chow\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e tried to summarize views from the meeting in this analysis:\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e https://gist.github.com/achow101/3e179501290abb7049de198d46894c7c\n\u003e     \u003chttps://gist.github.com/achow101/3e179501290abb7049de198d46894c7c\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003chttps://gist.github.com/achow101/3e179501290abb7049de198d46894c7c\n\u003e     \u003chttps://gist.github.com/achow101/3e179501290abb7049de198d46894c7c\u003e\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e I am also aware of other current and previous Bitcoin Core\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e contributors and Lightning developers who didn’t attend the meeting in\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e person who are opposed to LOT=true. I don’t want to put them in the\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e spotlight for no reason but if you go through the conversation logs of\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e not only the meeting but the weeks of discussion prior to this meeting\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e you will see their views evaluated on the ##taproot-activation\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e channel. In addition, on taprootactivation.com \u003chttp://taprootactivation.com\u003e\n\u003e     \u003chttp://taprootactivation.com \u003chttp://taprootactivation.com\u003e\u003e some mining pools\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e expressed a preference for lot=false though I don’t know how strong\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e that preference was.\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e I am only one voice but it is my current assessment that if we are to\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e attempt to finalize Taproot activation parameters and propose them to\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e the community at this time our only option is to propose LOT=false.\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e Any further delay appears to me counterproductive in our collective\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e aim to get the Taproot soft fork activated as early as possible.\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e Obviously others are free to disagree with that assessment and\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e continue discussions but personally I will be attempting to avoid\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e those discussions unless prominent new information comes to light or\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e various specific individuals change their minds.\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e Next week we are planning a code review of the Bitcoin Core PR #19573\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e which was initially delayed because of this LOT discussion. As I’ve\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e said previously that will be loosely following the format of the\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e Bitcoin Core PR review club and will be lower level and more\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e technical. That is planned for Tuesday February 23rd at 19:00 UTC on\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e the IRC channel ##taproot-activation.\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e Thanks to the meeting participants (and those who joined the\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e discussion on the channel prior and post the meeting) for engaging\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e productively and in good faith.\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e --\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e Michael Folkson\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e Email: michaelfolkson at gmail.com \u003cmailto:michaelfolkson at gmail.com\u003e \u003cmailto:michaelfolkson at gmail.com\n\u003e     \u003cmailto:michaelfolkson at gmail.com\u003e\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e Keybase: michaelfolkson\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e     \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003e \u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e     \u003chttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e         \u003chttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e     \u003chttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\u003e\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e     --\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e     Michael Folkson\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e     Email: michaelfolkson at gmail.com \u003cmailto:michaelfolkson at gmail.com\u003e \u003cmailto:michaelfolkson at gmail.com\n\u003e     \u003cmailto:michaelfolkson at gmail.com\u003e\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e     Keybase: michaelfolkson\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e     PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e     _______________________________________________\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e     bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e     \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e     \u003chttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\u003e     \u003chttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e     \u003chttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\u003e\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e\n\u003e      \u003e --\n\u003e      \u003e Michael Folkson\n\u003e      \u003e Email: michaelfolkson at gmail.com \u003cmailto:michaelfolkson at gmail.com\u003e \u003cmailto:michaelfolkson at gmail.com\n\u003e     \u003cmailto:michaelfolkson at gmail.com\u003e\u003e\n\u003e      \u003e Keybase: michaelfolkson\n\u003e      \u003e PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e -- \n\u003e Michael Folkson\n\u003e Email: michaelfolkson at gmail.com \u003cmailto:michaelfolkson at gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e Keybase: michaelfolkson\n\u003e PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3"}