Author: Matt Corallo 2021-04-07 17:13:11
Published on: 2021-04-07T17:13:11+00:00
In a recent thread in the Bitcoin-dev mailing list, some members discussed the Signet-based Taproot activation proposal. One member proposed using a Lot=false compromise position, while another argued that brinkmanship tooling is necessary for any situation that requires such action. The former also argued that having de-escalation in the strategy toolkit makes Bitcoin stronger and that something most people are OK with is better than nothing at all. While the latter disagreed with this characterization and argued that there isn't agreement on what a specific grand plan should look like. The discussion also touched on the downsides of using LOT=true, including the requirement to drop blocks from apathetic miners and the risk of a chain split if gauging economic majority support goes poorly. However, the same member pointed out that tracking economic majority is already possible, as demonstrated during Segwit2x and the BCH split. They suggested that we don't need to build janky ways to measure economic majority when there's already a great one that experience has shown us will provide reasonable signal given any material demand. Finally, there was a disagreement on whether to normalize brinkmanship or not. One member argued that openly creating a contingency plan is not brinkmanship but normal, while the other disagreed that the practice of how to go about it is wrong. The latter argued that the market will always be the ultimate decider, so we should optimize for ensuring that the market never needs to "correct the situation" by encouraging strife, which would cost users who want to use a reliable Bitcoin. In terms of UASF branch preparation along with ST, the two members had different perspectives on whether it was possible or not.
Updated on: 2023-05-21T02:01:38.666009+00:00