On 3/3/21 09:59, Anthony Towns wrote:
I think it would be worthwhile to also update getblocktemplate so that
miners signal uptake for something like three or four retarget periods
prior to activation, without that signalling having any consensus-level
effect. That should allow miners and businesses to adjust their
expectations for how much hashpower might not be enforcing taproot rules
when generating blocks -- potentially allowing miners to switch pools
to one running an up to date node, pools to reduce the amount of time
they spend mining on top of unvalidated headers, businesses to increase
confirmation requirements or prepare for the possibility of an increase
in invalid-block entries in their logs, etc.
I strongly agree. Ideally such signaling could be placed in the witness nonce, however this may require pool updates to
ensure pool server software is not assuming the 32-byte-0-nonce in wide use today. It is a worthwhile change in any
case, as it avoids the need to change pool software for future forks which place commitments in the nonce.
2) The high node-level-adoption bar is one of the most critical goals, and
the one most currently in jeopardy in a BIP 8 approach.
A couple of days ago I would have disagreed with this; but with Luke
now strongly pushing against implementing lot=false, I can at least see
your point...
Right. It may be the case that the minority group threatening to fork off onto a lot=true chain is not large enough to
give a second thought to. However, I'm not certain that its worth the risk, and, as Chris noted in his post this
morning, that approach is likely to include more drama.
Matt
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
