Last week, I co-hosted a @bitcoinmagazine clubhouse on #Bitcoin’s coming #Taproot activation.
Yes, there are differences in opinion. No, this does not resemble debates that have led to past network splits.
A quick thread on current consensus 🧵
Yes, there are differences in opinion. No, this does not resemble debates that have led to past network splits.
A quick thread on current consensus 🧵
2/ First, the context around #Taproot is very different than the debates that resulted in the #BCH blockchain split.
Nearly everyone agrees Taproot is beneficial for #Bitcoin, and there are (so far) no groups with meaningful objections to the proposal.
bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/tapro…
Nearly everyone agrees Taproot is beneficial for #Bitcoin, and there are (so far) no groups with meaningful objections to the proposal.
bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/tapro…
3/ The disagreement is about aligning activation (in code) with project ethos
There are two proposed ways to activate:
LOT = FALSE: Gives miners a year to activate Taproot, then it expires.
LOT = TRUE: Lets users activate Taproot if miners do not upgrade within a year.
There are two proposed ways to activate:
LOT = FALSE: Gives miners a year to activate Taproot, then it expires.
LOT = TRUE: Lets users activate Taproot if miners do not upgrade within a year.
4/ Bitcoin developers appear to favor LOT = FALSE.
If after 1 year miners do not upgrade, LOT = FALSE will cause #Taproot activation to fail.
Developers see a "miner-activated soft fork" (MASF) as the safe option and note Taproot can always be proposed for activation again.
If after 1 year miners do not upgrade, LOT = FALSE will cause #Taproot activation to fail.
Developers see a "miner-activated soft fork" (MASF) as the safe option and note Taproot can always be proposed for activation again.
5/ Users who backed 2017’s user-activated soft fork (UASF) appear to support LOT = TRUE
If after 1 year miners do not upgrade to #Taproot, LOT = TRUE will enact the change.
Users see a UASF as a way to “block a miner veto” over uncontroversial changes ready to be merged.
If after 1 year miners do not upgrade to #Taproot, LOT = TRUE will enact the change.
Users see a UASF as a way to “block a miner veto” over uncontroversial changes ready to be merged.
6/ This appears to be a principled disagreement.
#UASF advocates understand why developers would not want to add LOT=TRUE (thereby advocating for a change).
Developers understand users want LOT = TRUE, but don’t want to be “decision-makers” or to push unsafe code.
#UASF advocates understand why developers would not want to add LOT=TRUE (thereby advocating for a change).
Developers understand users want LOT = TRUE, but don’t want to be “decision-makers” or to push unsafe code.
7/ A LOT=TRUE version of the software is being coded by developers outside of Core.
It is suggested this could be vetted by Core developers independently, as was prior UASF code.
This is seen as users exercising a check on miners by deciding to run software.
It is suggested this could be vetted by Core developers independently, as was prior UASF code.
This is seen as users exercising a check on miners by deciding to run software.
8/ Most agree the situation could get a lot more contentious if miners delayed #Taproot.
Miners are seen as having delayed 2017’s #SegWit upgrade.
Over 80% of miners say they support the #Taproot upgrade: taprootactivation.com
Miners are seen as having delayed 2017’s #SegWit upgrade.
Over 80% of miners say they support the #Taproot upgrade: taprootactivation.com
9/ Bitcoin is a rough consensus system, and opinions on Taproot activation could shift.
Some developers are opposed to LOT = TRUE and may support no option if proposed.
Some users oppose LOT = FALSE and see UASFs (not MASFs) as better aligned with Bitcoin's values
Some developers are opposed to LOT = TRUE and may support no option if proposed.
Some users oppose LOT = FALSE and see UASFs (not MASFs) as better aligned with Bitcoin's values
10/ There are some “worst-case scenarios” where a chain split could occur.
If a significant part of the economic network was divided over the proposals, blockchain re-orgs are also possible.
Concern about these outcomes is low at the moment.
If a significant part of the economic network was divided over the proposals, blockchain re-orgs are also possible.
Concern about these outcomes is low at the moment.
11/ Note: This is just one person’s impression of a single group conversation.
If you want to get educated on #Bitcoin’s next upgrade, read @AaronvanW's latest article via @BitcoinMagazine.
bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/lottr…
If you want to get educated on #Bitcoin’s next upgrade, read @AaronvanW's latest article via @BitcoinMagazine.
bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/lottr…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
