📅 Original date posted:2021-04-06
📝 Original message:Jeremy via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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 generally.
> - There is desire to know if Rusty retracts or reaffirms his NACK in light
> of the responses.
I do not withdraw my NACK (and kudos: there have been few attempts to
pressure me to do so!).
The core question always was: what do we do if miners fail to activate?
Luke-Jr takes the approach that "we (i.e developers) ensure it activates
anyway". I take the approach that "the users must make a direct
intervention". Speedy Trial takes the approach that "let's pretend we
didn't *actually* ask them".
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 robust.
Personally, I think the compromise position is using LOT=false and
having those such as Luke and myself continue working on a LOT=true
branch for future consideration. It's less than optimal, but I
appreciate that people want Taproot activated more than they want
the groundwork future upgrades.
I hope that helps,
Rusty.
Rusty Russell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1zw…hkhpx
2023-06-07 18:31:20
in reply to nevent1q…v7nc
Author Public Key
npub1zw7cc8z78v6s3grujfvcv3ckpvg6kr0w7nz9yzvwyglyg0qu5sjsqhkhpxPublished at
2023-06-07 18:31:20Event JSON
{
"id": "97bb42efbf1acb6b87f9f18dd909217e94b4a08cefd314d0da8d963f33922b6e",
"pubkey": "13bd8c1c5e3b3508a07c92598647160b11ab0deef4c452098e223e443c1ca425",
"created_at": 1686162680,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"e73e50e9f54430f38360d52272d6b1694af07b74d14c02f6b929d26ea12016e1",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"a23dbf6c6cc83e14cc3df4e56cc71845f611908084cfe620e83e40c06ccdd3d0"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2021-04-06\n📝 Original message:Jeremy via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e writes:\n\u003e We had a very productive meeting today. Here is a summary of the meeting --\n\u003e I've done my best to\n\u003e summarize in an unbiased way. Thank you to everyone who attended.\n\u003e\n\u003e 1. On the use of a speedy trial variant:\n\u003e\n\u003e - There are no new objections to speedy trial generally.\n\u003e - There is desire to know if Rusty retracts or reaffirms his NACK in light\n\u003e of the responses.\n\nI do not withdraw my NACK (and kudos: there have been few attempts to\npressure me to do so!).\n\nThe core question always was: what do we do if miners fail to activate?\n\nLuke-Jr takes the approach that \"we (i.e developers) ensure it activates\nanyway\". I take the approach that \"the users must make a direct\nintervention\". Speedy Trial takes the approach that \"let's pretend we\ndidn't *actually* ask them\".\n\nIt's totally a political approach, to avoid facing the awkward question.\nSince I believe that such prevaricating makes a future crisis less\npredictable, I am forced to conclude that it makes bitcoin less robust.\n\nPersonally, I think the compromise position is using LOT=false and\nhaving those such as Luke and myself continue working on a LOT=true\nbranch for future consideration. It's less than optimal, but I\nappreciate that people want Taproot activated more than they want\nthe groundwork future upgrades.\n\nI hope that helps,\nRusty.",
"sig": "5c450c6a720e36186bcfe56306bea01ac618336cdc79c961b5bc0cfca75b5c94c33f43d2d136386f771cf77b93751bf2d8a48601a879a0901d40505d6a6c9406"
}