Author: Jorge Timón 2021-03-08 12:51:50
Published on: 2021-03-08T12:51:50+00:00
There is a debate over the implementation of Taproot and the best way to activate it. Some people are against the use of bip8, while others believe that it is well-designed for case 1, which allows users to override miner objections if they object for bad reasons. However, there is more significant support for case 2 than expected, which means removing miners' influence over consensus rules entirely. This has led to concerns about the possibility of consensus splits and the need for safety mechanisms in bitcoind to survive a network split. David Harding's "speedy trial" approach is seen as a better solution as running a lot=true variant would require enforcing signaling before the end of July, which is an unreasonable timeframe to expect the majority of economic nodes to upgrade in. If bip9 is used, then the risk of enforcement occurring with minority hashrate would also make a bip148/lot=true variant difficulty. Matt's proposed approach is seen as a simpler approach to avoid giving miners undue influence on consensus. The preference is to do the "speedy trial" with signaling first, and if that fails, then either we've established there are real problems with taproot and will go back to the drawing board to fix them, or if we have not found problems by that time, we should simply switch to a straight flag day activation as Matt proposes. Presumably, we'll have established broad community consensus for activation if no objections are discovered during the speedy trial.
Updated on: 2023-06-14T18:45:34.124548+00:00