Author: Ben Woosley 2021-02-23 23:14:33
Published on: 2021-02-23T23:14:33+00:00
In the bitcoin-dev mailing list, Keagan and Jeremy have been discussing the importance of finding consensus on LOT (Locking in the Outpoint). While some are opposed to LOT=true, others argue that it's not coercive unless there is opposition to Taproot itself. However, if no one opposes Taproot, then by definition there is consensus. Those who advocate for LOT=false do not necessarily oppose the consensus change being proposed. Some believe that LOT=false is safer than LOT=true as it provides an opportunity to address sentiments and elements of the network before proceeding with LOT=true. On the other hand, Jeremy argues that a small minority selecting the opposite of what Core releases presents an asymmetry as LOT=true nodes are clearly updated or lying, while LOT=false nodes may be un-upgraded. If 80% of nodes select LOT=false and 20% select LOT=true, LOT=false does less to prevent a chain split. Conversely, if 80% of nodes select LOT=true and 20% select LOT=false, LOT=false has no long-term instability on consensus, while majority LOT=true means the final period always activates and any instability is short-lived and irrational. Jeremy concludes that choosing a less safe option for a narrative reason is more of a show of dev control than choosing a safer option despite appearances. The plan of action could either be for Core to release LOT=true, anti-advocate running LOT=true, do nothing, or release LOT=false and advocate manually changing to LOT=true to ensure a supermajority. Overall, the emotional dynamic among developers around LOT=true is that they wish it didn't exist because it creates issues. However, they must accept that it is most likely here to stay.The email is discussing the need to create a consensus or find a new game theoretic activation strategy with better pro-social equilibriums. The author believes that the risk of forking is low, regardless of which plan is chosen. They suggest picking a plan and moving forward, accepting that it won't set a precedent for future forks. The author thinks LOT=true is the safest option, but wouldn't hold back LOT=false. They mention taking mitigative steps on community advocacy if there is non-majority but non-negligible LOT=true uptake. The email ends with standard mailing list information.
Updated on: 2023-06-14T18:02:58.821200+00:00