[bitcoin-dev] Yesterday's Taproot activation meeting on lockinontimeout (LOT)

Erik Aronesty erik at q32.com
Sun Feb 21 16:21:34 UTC 2021

I think the most important thing is that the configuration setting is
advertised if somebody were to query the node for its capabilities.

Is this the case?

That way the default value isn't really the important thing.

There are longstanding and well-known nodes, for example.  Community
support and visibility for a UASF is the most important aspect.

I looked over the threads and I don't think I saw the broadcast nature of
this setting clearly discussed.

On Wed, Feb 17, 2021, 10:10 AM Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Yesterday (February 16th) we held a second meeting on Taproot
> activation on IRC which again was open to all. Despite what appeared
> to be majority support for LOT=false over LOT=true in the first
> meeting I (and others) thought the arguments had not been explored in
> depth and that we should have a follow up meeting almost entirely
> focused on whether LOT (lockinontimeout) should be set to true or
> false.
> The meeting was announced here:
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018380.html
> In that mailing list post I outlined the arguments for LOT=true (T1 to
> T6) and arguments for LOT=false (F1 to F6) in their strongest form I
> could. David Harding responded with an additional argument for
> LOT=false (F7) here:
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018415.html
> These meetings are very challenging given they are open to all, you
> don’t know who will attend and you don’t know most people’s views in
> advance. I tried to give time for both the LOT=true arguments and the
> LOT=false arguments to be discussed as I knew there was support for
> both. We only tried evaluating which had more support and which had
> more strong opposition towards the end of the meeting.
> The conversation log is here:
> http://gnusha.org/taproot-activation/2021-02-16.log
> (If you are so inclined you can watch a video of the meeting here.
> Thanks to the YouTube account “Bitcoin” for setting up the livestream:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpl5q1ovMLM)
> A summary of the meeting was provided by Luke Dashjr on Mastodon here:
> https://bitcoinhackers.org/@lukedashjr/105742918779234566
> Today's #Bitcoin #Taproot meeting was IMO largely unproductive, but we
> did manage to come to consensus on everything but LockinOnTimeout.
> Activation height range: 693504-745920
> MASF threshold: 1815/2016 blocks (90%)
> Keep in mind only ~100 people showed for the meetings, hardly
> representative of the entire community.
> So, these details remain JUST a proposal for now.
> It seems inevitable that there won't be consensus on LOT.
> Everyone will have to choose for himself. :/
> Personally I agree with most of this. I agree that there wasn’t
> overwhelming consensus for either LOT=true or LOT=false. However, from
> my perspective there was clearly more strong opposition (what would
> usually be deemed a NACK in Bitcoin Core review terminology) from
> Bitcoin Core contributors, Lightning developers and other community
> members against LOT=true than there was for LOT=false. Andrew Chow
> tried to summarize views from the meeting in this analysis:
> https://gist.github.com/achow101/3e179501290abb7049de198d46894c7c
> I am also aware of other current and previous Bitcoin Core
> contributors and Lightning developers who didn’t attend the meeting in
> person who are opposed to LOT=true. I don’t want to put them in the
> spotlight for no reason but if you go through the conversation logs of
> not only the meeting but the weeks of discussion prior to this meeting
> you will see their views evaluated on the ##taproot-activation
> channel. In addition, on taprootactivation.com some mining pools
> expressed a preference for lot=false though I don’t know how strong
> that preference was.
> I am only one voice but it is my current assessment that if we are to
> attempt to finalize Taproot activation parameters and propose them to
> the community at this time our only option is to propose LOT=false.
> Any further delay appears to me counterproductive in our collective
> aim to get the Taproot soft fork activated as early as possible.
> Obviously others are free to disagree with that assessment and
> continue discussions but personally I will be attempting to avoid
> those discussions unless prominent new information comes to light or
> various specific individuals change their minds.
> Next week we are planning a code review of the Bitcoin Core PR #19573
> which was initially delayed because of this LOT discussion. As I’ve
> said previously that will be loosely following the format of the
> Bitcoin Core PR review club and will be lower level and more
> technical. That is planned for Tuesday February 23rd at 19:00 UTC on
> the IRC channel ##taproot-activation.
> Thanks to the meeting participants (and those who joined the
> discussion on the channel prior and post the meeting) for engaging
> productively and in good faith.
> --
> Michael Folkson
> Email: michaelfolkson at gmail.com
> Keybase: michaelfolkson
> PGP: 43ED C999 9F85 1D40 EAF4 9835 92D6 0159 214C FEE3
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210221/f8ea2175/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the bitcoin-dev mailing list