📅 Original date posted:2021-03-03
📝 Original message: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
Matt Corallo [ARCHIVE] /
npub1e4…jxmcu
2023-06-07 18:30:01
in reply to nevent1q…fwdg
Author Public Key
npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcuPublished at
2023-06-07 18:30:01Event JSON
{
"id": "138d005acb888beb41fed9c5372ba9d14e40c1ac3fc08909f7caedcefc517acf",
"pubkey": "cd753aa8fbc112e14ffe9fe09d3630f0eff76ca68e376e004b8e77b687adddba",
"created_at": 1686162601,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"2f355e96ed60c9e05cb0fa6b0ebd748fb534d420c589e92127d1d775f91c20a9",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"0fc3b8b45a29325911d3939cbba269c5c830488640f2ad3277afa58d076f8fe1",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f0feda6ad58ea9f486e469f87b3b9996494363a26982b864667c5d8acb0542ab"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2021-03-03\n📝 Original message:On 3/3/21 09:59, Anthony Towns wrote:\n\u003e I think it would be worthwhile to also update getblocktemplate so that\n\u003e miners signal uptake for something like three or four retarget periods\n\u003e prior to activation, without that signalling having any consensus-level\n\u003e effect. That should allow miners and businesses to adjust their\n\u003e expectations for how much hashpower might not be enforcing taproot rules\n\u003e when generating blocks -- potentially allowing miners to switch pools\n\u003e to one running an up to date node, pools to reduce the amount of time\n\u003e they spend mining on top of unvalidated headers, businesses to increase\n\u003e confirmation requirements or prepare for the possibility of an increase\n\u003e in invalid-block entries in their logs, etc.\n\nI strongly agree. Ideally such signaling could be placed in the witness nonce, however this may require pool updates to \nensure pool server software is not assuming the 32-byte-0-nonce in wide use today. It is a worthwhile change in any \ncase, as it avoids the need to change pool software for future forks which place commitments in the nonce.\n\n\u003e\u003e 2) The high node-level-adoption bar is one of the most critical goals, and\n\u003e\u003e the one most currently in jeopardy in a BIP 8 approach.\n\u003e \n\u003e A couple of days ago I would have disagreed with this; but with Luke\n\u003e now strongly pushing against implementing lot=false, I can at least see\n\u003e your point...\n\nRight. It may be the case that the minority group threatening to fork off onto a lot=true chain is not large enough to \ngive a second thought to. However, I'm not certain that its worth the risk, and, as Chris noted in his post this \nmorning, that approach is likely to include more drama.\n\nMatt",
"sig": "009523225667ae90532c8c7d40c647fa02e140e581a197eb99740188a35baf807ae9a75ad05a7710d2ca73e1890fd3eb4593192e1fc1aa66f1f0eae73f8172a7"
}