Author: Michael Folkson 2021-03-24 19:14:12
Published on: 2021-03-24T19:14:12+00:00
In this context, Jeremy accuses Michael of being ingenuine in his response with regards to "other projects" as he is one of the parties spearheading a project. Jeremy claims that the NACK on MTP based ST has no merit and finds it strange that Michael prefers consistency instead of acknowledging either full MTP or full height. He refers to AJ's note where it is technically justified to use MTP w/ min active height. Jeremy believes Michael's logic around point 2 to be more applicable to ST with height, as pushing for height-based ST is causing additional review burden on contributors in service of enabling a fringe group's side project. Michael responds by stating that he supports Taproot activation and any project that can help bring that about but is 100% against an incompatible UASF release with a Core ST release. He believes that a UASF project is well within its rights to work around finalized ST parameters in Core to prepare for a possible failed ST deployment. Michael also documented his preferences for consistent use of block height over a weird mix of both block heights and MTP in the same activation mechanism. He argues that using a mix of both makes no sense to him and finds it easier to reason about timings and time intervals of the different activation phases if block heights are used consistently across the activation mechanism.
Updated on: 2023-06-14T19:47:19.441540+00:00