Published on: 2021-03-02T20:19:41+00:00
The term "51% attack" is commonly used to refer to a majority censor, but some argue that the term is better reserved for stealing from someone using hash power. The term helps people understand the mechanism of hash power soft fork enforcement. However, referring to miners enforcing rules without social support as a 51% attack confuses the actual behavior and implies that the mechanism is somehow different because of an ill-defined level of agreement.Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces suggested that LOT=false has a clear advantage in that it can happen without the need for a social movement, only requiring the convincing of 95% of miners. Apathetic users would not notice any disruption regardless of the success or failure of the activation. On the other hand, LOT=true requires being able to 51% the blockchain to win apathetic users, which could be disruptive if miners choose to create an invalid chain. However, Luke Dashjr argues that LOT=True does not necessarily result in this scenario and that miners could create an invalid chain at any time with or without a softfork involved.In a Bitcoin-dev conversation between Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces and Luke Dashjr, the former made a statement implying that LOT=false activation method is better than LOT=true. Dashjr corrected him by saying that miners enforcing rules without social support is not a soft fork but a 51% attack. Ariel responded by stating that he never said LOT=true does it; rather, it must achieve 51% miner support to pose reorg risks to force apathetic users into paying attention. Dashjr further explained that LOT=True doesn't cause such disruption unless miners choose to create an invalid chain, which they could do at any time with or without a softfork involved.A conversation on bitcoin-dev mailing list highlighted the advantages of a softfork with LOT=false activation method. It can be achieved without the need for social movement, but only requires convincing 95% of miners. The apathetic users will not notice any service disruption, regardless of the success or failure of the activation. This is why it became the default activation method. However, forcing rules without social support is considered a 51% attack, which is not a softfork. On the other hand, LOT=true requires 51% of the blockchain to win the apathetic users, which can lead to disruptive reorgs. However, this is not true as LOT=true does not create an invalid chain. Miners can create an invalid chain at any time, with or without a softfork involved.It has been eight months since the Taproot activation discussion began, and while progress has been made towards overwhelming consensus on the activation mechanism (BIP 8) and all parameters except lockinontimeout (LOT), there is still no philosopher's stone that will garner 100% consensus without any chain split risk. It is unclear whether Bitcoin Core will be able to release any activation code due to disagreement logjams. As a result, some are advocating for a community release implementing LOT=true in a similar spirit to the 2017 UASF effort, as approximately 90% of mining pools have declared support, and there is overwhelming community consensus to activate Taproot. However, others argue that a social movement would require tremendous work to convince users, miners, and service providers to run a UASF client.There is also the option of LOT=false, which does not require a social movement but only convincing 95% of miners. Apathetic users will never notice any service disruption regardless of the success or failure of the activation. The choice has always been about the order, with some thinking LOT=true should be attempted first and others thinking LOT=false should be attempted first. The author urges people to try LOT=false first, as a minor chain split one year later and a year of wasted time could result from a failed UASF movement. Social movements are hard to create, especially when the people you're trying to convince don't feel threatened. It would be a shame to meet back here a year later after verbal conflicts, misdirection, lies, vilification, reorgs, double spends, PoW changes, and threats galore.It has been eight months since Steve Lee initiated the Taproot activation discussion through the creation of IRC channel ##taproot-activation. Though there were discussions prior to this, it was the first step towards finding a solution. However, even after eight months, some people are still searching for a philosopher's stone that will garner 100 percent consensus with zero chain split risk. Michael Folkson suggests stepping away from circular debates and building on the progress made so far. Overwhelming consensus has been achieved on the activation mechanism (BIP 8) and all parameters except for one (lockinontimeout or LOT).
Updated on: 2023-08-02T03:19:35.331192+00:00