On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 02:31:13PM +0930, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> >> 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 r
On 4/7/21 01:01, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
Ryan Grant writes:
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 11:58 PM Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev
What ST is saying is that a strategy of avoiding unnecessary risk is
stronger than a strategy of brinkmanship when brinkmanship wasn't
our only option. Havi
You may activate any time you want.
e
From: bitcoin-dev On Behalf Of
Claus Ehrenberg via bitcoin-dev
Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 6:42 AM
To: Rusty Russell ; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] March 23rd 2021 Taproot Activation Meeting Notes
As a user, I think
As a user, I think it's very important for me to know if Taproot is
eventually coming or not. So why not make it so that if _either_ miners
_or_ users decide for Taproot, it will activate no matter what. Accepting a
chain split is imo the fairest way to 'resolve the conflict' (it can't be
resolved
Ryan Grant writes:
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 11:58 PM Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
>> The core question always was: what do we do if miners fail to activate?
>>
>> [...] Speedy Trial takes the approach that "let's pretend we didn't
>> *actually* ask [miners]".
>
> What ST is saying is t
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 11:58 PM Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> The core question always was: what do we do if miners fail to activate?
>
> [...] Speedy Trial takes the approach that "let's pretend we didn't
> *actually* ask [miners]".
What ST is saying is that a strategy of avoiding unne
Jeremy via bitcoin-dev 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 gen
I think it's fine to move the dates back two weeks in that case; it was
unclear from the meeting transcript if people thought release would be may
1st or startheight, but via parameter flexibility we can shift everything
back 2 weeks if we want.
W.r.t. the selection of MTP there's no funny busines
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 08:46:54PM -0700, Jeremy via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 3. Parameter Selection
> - There is broad agreement that we should target something like a May 1st
> release, with 1 week from rc1 starttime/startheight,
> and 3 months + delta stoptime/stopheight (6 retargetting periods)
> Your response strikes me as ingenuine with regards to "other projects" as it
> is a project I understand you to be one of the parties spearheading. I think
> it's misleading to not clarify that in your response.
I support Taproot activation and any project that can help bring that
about. As I
Michael,
Your response strikes me as ingenuine with regards to "other projects" as
it is a project I understand you to be one of the parties spearheading. I
think it's misleading to not clarify that in your response.
Your NACK on MTP based ST does not have any merit. The only argument you
made fo
Thanks for this Jeremy. I agree with the vast majority of this.
For those that missed yesterday's meeting the meeting log is here:
http://gnusha.org/taproot-activation/2021-03-23.log
Jeremy also livestreamed the meeting on his Twitch channel:
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/960346848
On the choice
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 r
13 matches
Mail list logo
