📅 Original date posted:2021-03-06
📝 Original message:I don't think anyone is proposing anything to "prevent" other people from doing anything they wish. My understanding of
the goal of this proposal, itself, was to keep the community together by proposing a solution that was palatable to all.
My point was that I'm not sure that this proposal achieves its own goal, and that there may be solutions which are even
more likely to keep the community of nodes together.
Matt
On 3/6/21 15:23, David A. Harding wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 06, 2021 at 01:11:01PM -0500, Matt Corallo wrote:
>> I'm really unsure that three months is a short enough time window that there
>> wouldn't be a material effort to split the network with divergent consensus
>> rules.
>
> I oppose designing activation mechanisms with the goal of preventing
> other people from effectively exercising self determination over what
> consensus rules their nodes enforce.
>
> Three months was chosen because it's long enough to give miners a
> reasonable enough amount of time to activate taproot but it's also short
> enough that it doesn't delay any of the existing proposals with roughly
> one-year timelines. As such, I think it has the potential to gain
> acceptance from multiple current factions (even if it doesn't ever gain
> their full approval), allowing us to move forward with rough social
> consensus and to gain useful information from the attempt that can
> inform future decisions.
>
> -Dave
>
Matt Corallo [ARCHIVE] /
npub1e4…jxmcu
2023-06-07 18:30:35
in reply to nevent1q…5t87
Author Public Key
npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcuPublished at
2023-06-07 18:30:35Event JSON
{
"id": "5db31d8f469840db4bd2f092b13e13846da00beeae27f0bed6c3d75fffc52f12",
"pubkey": "cd753aa8fbc112e14ffe9fe09d3630f0eff76ca68e376e004b8e77b687adddba",
"created_at": 1686162635,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"15c42fa852124a8300f31a1b111b86f45aee806989411ee68291c83252a4705c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"08a5217590f951ead8660646d42c4d83b8f471723c6a054023089e19bf1e80a7",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"d3574a24208f4e3d0821bb4a69a0c3ae842043d444fa5c4a8c49c369918a6fb2"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2021-03-06\n📝 Original message:I don't think anyone is proposing anything to \"prevent\" other people from doing anything they wish. My understanding of \nthe goal of this proposal, itself, was to keep the community together by proposing a solution that was palatable to all. \nMy point was that I'm not sure that this proposal achieves its own goal, and that there may be solutions which are even \nmore likely to keep the community of nodes together.\n\nMatt\n\nOn 3/6/21 15:23, David A. Harding wrote:\n\u003e On Sat, Mar 06, 2021 at 01:11:01PM -0500, Matt Corallo wrote:\n\u003e\u003e I'm really unsure that three months is a short enough time window that there\n\u003e\u003e wouldn't be a material effort to split the network with divergent consensus\n\u003e\u003e rules.\n\u003e \n\u003e I oppose designing activation mechanisms with the goal of preventing\n\u003e other people from effectively exercising self determination over what\n\u003e consensus rules their nodes enforce.\n\u003e \n\u003e Three months was chosen because it's long enough to give miners a\n\u003e reasonable enough amount of time to activate taproot but it's also short\n\u003e enough that it doesn't delay any of the existing proposals with roughly\n\u003e one-year timelines. As such, I think it has the potential to gain\n\u003e acceptance from multiple current factions (even if it doesn't ever gain\n\u003e their full approval), allowing us to move forward with rough social\n\u003e consensus and to gain useful information from the attempt that can\n\u003e inform future decisions.\n\u003e \n\u003e -Dave\n\u003e",
"sig": "d20b46f39aaa113e3e67528a607886c46432b280f61d00dfe542ecc729b4af22392d0ff7a3913084e726debcf5c28f830d3ee0553516895efb7dc40c8debb022"
}