Something to consider adding to this proposal is to keep the idea of
pruning - i.e. retain a sequentially uninterrupted number of the most
recent blocks.
Many users do not run a node for entirely altruistic reasons - they do so,
at least in part, because it allows them to use their wallets private
On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 10:18 AM Leo Wandersleb via bitcoin-dev
mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> > wrote:
> Only headers need to be downloaded sequentially so downloading relevant
> blocks from one node is totally possible with gaps in between.
In fact this is exactly how lib
> Today users should start cooperating again to continue using the
> optimal strategy.
the "gradual" method of reducing the % of miners required for lock-in
as time goes on seems to encode this optimal strategy.
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 6:43 AM Ariel Luaces via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb
On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 05:55:00PM +, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:
[on the topic of non-signalled activation; ie "it doesn't matter what
miners do or signal, the rules are active as of height X"]
> This has the same problems BIP149 did: since there is no signalling, it is
> ambiguous w
On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 07:33:30PM +, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> As we saw in 2017 with BIP 9, coordinating activation by miner signal alone,
> despite its potential benefits, also leaves open the door to a miner veto.
To the contrary, we saw in 2017 that miners could *not* success
How about a compromise?
With LOT=false, taproot will be activated if at least 95% of the miners
vote yes.
With LOT=true, taproot will be activated if at least 0% of the miners
vote yes.
...with LOT=maybe, taproot will be activated if at least ~some% of the
miners vote yes?
If you want the 'e
The short script* below could function as a cross platform (need only have
python 2 and curl) way to make a LOT=False function like a LOT=true node.
This sort of script was mentioned recently in the ##taproot-activation IRC
channel.
It is unclear to me with this sort of script what happens if a LO
It is approximately 8 months since Steve Lee formally kicked off the
Taproot activation discussion by setting up the ##taproot-activation
IRC channel. Obviously there was discussion that considerably predates
that but that was the first recognition that there needed to be a
focus towards a solution
Hi Suhas,
Thank you for this proposal. I agree with your aims, but I think a new
P2P message isn't necessary to achieve them.
# Motivation
There are two distinct (but interacting) motivations:
1. Allow a node to accept more incoming connections which will only be
used for block propagation (
> Personally I consider this counterproductive. Apart from the complexity,
it’s not healthy. And the chain grows linearly with storage cost falling
exponentially, leading to a straightforward conclusion.
The motivation for this change is not to encourage full archival nodes to
prune, but to make i
On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 01:06:14AM +1000, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 07:33:30PM +, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > As we saw in 2017 with BIP 9, coordinating activation by miner signal
> > alone,
> > despite its potential benefits, also leaves open t
To be clear, is this a NACK because Taproot reduces “transparency” (increases
privacy) on the chain (“maintaining consensus” is obviously an argument against
any protocol change, so that’s a red herring)?
And is it your theory that only an “honest” (statute abiding) person should
have privacy,
Hi John,
> I think a good counter-argument against simply using `fRelay` for this
> purpose is that we shouldn't reuse a protocol feature designed for one
> function to achieve a totally different aim. However, we know that nodes
> on the network have been using `fRelay` to disable transaction rel
Any "transparency" in the blockchain, beyond that required for a participant to
determine valid ownership, can only reasonably be thought of as a bug.
Today I spent approximately $5 at a chip shop in North London in cash. Besides
the fact that I have voluntarily chosen to share this information,
This is the declining percentage of signaling activation.
It has all the benefits of both.
Eventually it becomes a LOT=true, so any argument for LOT=true holds
And all of the arguments for LOT=false are satisfied by the cool down
period.
On Mon, Mar 1, 2021, 12:05 PM yanmaani--- via bitcoin-d
15 matches
Mail list logo
