<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub103ycruxnchhvja33mcnnkfdkgd0s7vlqlfkvufcdm5lnhpuh6f4q82kpam</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub103ycruxnchhvja33mcnnkfdkgd0s7vlqlfkvufcdm5lnhpuh6f4q82kpam</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2021-02-17&#xA;📝 Original message:Yesterday (February 16th) we held a second meeting on Taproot&#xA;activation on IRC which again was open to all. Despite what appeared&#xA;to be majority support for LOT=false over LOT=true in the first&#xA;meeting I (and others) thought the arguments had not been explored in&#xA;depth and that we should have a follow up meeting almost entirely&#xA;focused on whether LOT (lockinontimeout) should be set to true or&#xA;false.&#xA;&#xA;The meeting was announced here:&#xA;https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018380.html&#xA;&#xA;In that mailing list post I outlined the arguments for LOT=true (T1 to&#xA;T6) and arguments for LOT=false (F1 to F6) in their strongest form I&#xA;could. David Harding responded with an additional argument for&#xA;LOT=false (F7) here:&#xA;https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018415.html&#xA;&#xA;These meetings are very challenging given they are open to all, you&#xA;don’t know who will attend and you don’t know most people’s views in&#xA;advance. I tried to give time for both the LOT=true arguments and the&#xA;LOT=false arguments to be discussed as I knew there was support for&#xA;both. We only tried evaluating which had more support and which had&#xA;more strong opposition towards the end of the meeting.&#xA;&#xA;The conversation log is here:&#xA;http://gnusha.org/taproot-activation/2021-02-16.log&#xA;&#xA;(If you are so inclined you can watch a video of the meeting here.&#xA;Thanks to the YouTube account “Bitcoin” for setting up the livestream:&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpl5q1ovMLM)&#xA;&#xA;A summary of the meeting was provided by Luke Dashjr on Mastodon here:&#xA;https://bitcoinhackers.org/@lukedashjr/105742918779234566&#xA;&#xA;Today&#39;s #Bitcoin #Taproot meeting was IMO largely unproductive, but we&#xA;did manage to come to consensus on everything but LockinOnTimeout.&#xA;&#xA;Activation height range: 693504-745920&#xA;&#xA;MASF threshold: 1815/2016 blocks (90%)&#xA;&#xA;Keep in mind only ~100 people showed for the meetings, hardly&#xA;representative of the entire community.&#xA;&#xA;So, these details remain JUST a proposal for now.&#xA;&#xA;It seems inevitable that there won&#39;t be consensus on LOT.&#xA;&#xA;Everyone will have to choose for himself. :/&#xA;&#xA;Personally I agree with most of this. I agree that there wasn’t&#xA;overwhelming consensus for either LOT=true or LOT=false. However, from&#xA;my perspective there was clearly more strong opposition (what would&#xA;usually be deemed a NACK in Bitcoin Core review terminology) from&#xA;Bitcoin Core contributors, Lightning developers and other community&#xA;members against LOT=true than there was for LOT=false. Andrew Chow&#xA;tried to summarize views from the meeting in this analysis:&#xA;https://gist.github.com/achow101/3e179501290abb7049de198d46894c7c&#xA;&#xA;I am also aware of other current and previous Bitcoin Core&#xA;contributors and Lightning developers who didn’t attend the meeting in&#xA;person who are opposed to LOT=true. I don’t want to put them in the&#xA;spotlight for no reason but if you go through the conversation logs of&#xA;not only the meeting but the weeks of discussion prior to this meeting&#xA;you will see their views evaluated on the ##taproot-activation&#xA;channel. In addition, on taprootactivation.com some mining pools&#xA;expressed a preference for lot=false though I don’t know how strong&#xA;that preference was.&#xA;&#xA;I am only one voice but it is my current assessment that if we are to&#xA;attempt to finalize Taproot activation parameters and propose them to&#xA;the community at this time our only option is to propose LOT=false.&#xA;Any further delay appears to me counterproductive in our collective&#xA;aim to get the Taproot soft fork activated as early as possible.&#xA;&#xA;Obviously others are free to disagree with that assessment and&#xA;continue discussions but personally I will be attempting to avoid&#xA;those discussions unless prominent new information comes to light or&#xA;various specific individuals change their minds.&#xA;&#xA;Next week we are planning a code review of the Bitcoin Core PR #19573&#xA;which was initially delayed because of this LOT discussion. As I’ve&#xA;said previously that will be loosely following the format of the&#xA;Bitcoin Core PR review club and will be lower level and more&#xA;technical. That is planned for Tuesday February 23rd at 19:00 UTC on&#xA;the IRC channel ##taproot-activation.&#xA;&#xA;Thanks to the meeting participants (and those who joined the&#xA;discussion on the channel prior and post the meeting) for engaging&#xA;productively and in good faith.&#xA;&#xA;-- &#xA;Michael Folkson&#xA;Email: michaelfolkson at gmail.com&#xA;Keybase: michaelfolkson&#xA;PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3</html></oembed>