Thread by @_Checkmatey_

The #Bitcoin Taproot🌱Activation debate is fascinating to see it play out. Given it is quite a complex topic (Bitcoin governance), let me lay out how I see it and my perspective.

I may have elements wrong but this is my current and best understanding.

Thread👇

Premise:

The Taproot soft fork implements Schnorr signatures and additional output scripts that enhance privacy and functionality, especially for lightning and multi-sig setups.

Overall, the code is widely regarded as uncontentious, well constructed, reviewed and high quality.

Activation:

Code is fine, but how do you activate in a PoW rough consensus?

The goal is to have the whole network running compatible code, miners in particular, to avoid any chain-split potential.

Four key groups:
- Miners
- Core devs
- Economic Nodes (exchanges etc)
- Users

Flag Day:

2017 scaling wars, miners + economic nodes misbehaved pushing Segwit2x in New York Agreement.

Users + Devs pushed back, threatened BIP8 UASF that would nullify miner rewards

Miners folded and activated Segwit

UASF Flag Day imo was never deployed by code, just threat

LOT=bool:

LOT=False means no UASF, allow miners to activate.
LOT=True means UASF on set flag day, force behaviour.

Hardcore Bitcoiners have PTSD from scaling war. They do not want to ever secede even a fraction of power back to miners (LOT=True). This increases split risk imo.

Lot=bool:

Miners currently signal 89% to activate and there is no sign of misbehaviour yet.
taprootactivation.com

Core devs should ship Bitcoin core as LOT=False so they are not imposing a forced upgrade.

Users will naturally modify core with a LOT=True.

I will run False.

Optimal Result:

Default Core MUST be LOT=False and we KNOW for sure toxic maxis will run LOT=True.

Miners are a reformed entity now, too much on the line and just the treat of a UASF keeps them in line.

Bitcoiner angst against miners is misguided but necessary in the minority.

Guess at outcome:

This entire debate is about setting soft fork precedent.

Flag days/UASF increases risk of a chainsplit and should not be used unless miners/econ nodes misbehave.

It is a tool that only needs to be used in the extreme.

But hardcore maxis will do it anyway.

Outcome:

Thus, miners are highly likely to upgrade simply because nobody wants the hassle or risk of a chainsplit nor any tail risk for that matter. Protect the ASICs.

Toxic maxis will run LOT=True anyway despite risks. This is foolish imo unless we go years without progress.

Final:

Whole debate is healthy but shows woeful understanding of rough consensus governance by large cross section.

Unsurprising, it's complex and nuanced + full of dogma

The most important precedent to set is the TIMESPAN from code merge to 'toxic flag day'

12-18mths min imo