Taproot proposal

[fillippone]

 Another summary from BTC Times:

Mining Pools Poolin, Slush & BTC.com Announce Support for Taproot

According to Taproot-Activation, a website launched by Poolin, three large mining pools have announced their support for the upgrade: Poolin, Slush Pool, and BTC.com. According to BTC.com, the three pools collectively manage around 25% of the Bitcoin network's total hash rate.

The pools currently support different activation processess.

Also nice link to https://taprootactivation.com/

[1715305325]

1715305325

[1715305325]

1715305325

[1715305325]

1715305325

[1715305325]

1715305325

[Wind_FURY]

There are three mining pools which have started to signal support for Taproot/Schnorr activation. Poolin, Slush, and BTC.com.

BTC.com? Isn't that Roger Ver's pool?

Tracker, https://taprootactivation.com/

That's a small start: currently, those three pools contribute an overall of 25% of global hashing power. By the way, BTC.com is from Bitmain.
It's interesting to notice the already very different approaches of the first three pools signaling the upgrade:

• Poolin - BIP9 (the same BIP for SegWit that went through tough times where the upgrade need to be activated before a specific time reaching a set threshold)
• Slush Pool - BIP8 (UASF that would also activate the upgrade at a specific future date or block height no matter the threshold reached)
• BTC.com - BIP8 + BIP9

Let's see when other pools join the party.

Another Chinese pool, F2Pool, has started to signal for activation as well. One of the largest pools with BTC.com, part of the mining cartel.

It might be a smooth process without any drama and politics, but Slush's BIP8 for insurance.

[Charles-Tim]

Bitcoin mining pools representing over 54% of the network’s current hashrate have signaled support for the scaling and privacy protocol upgrade Taproot, merged into Bitcoin Core last month.



https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-miners-taproot-schnorr-support

[Karartma1]

AntPool signaling BIP8 like SlushPool, that's some news now! Perhaps, I've been too critical a few weeks ago when I was expecting some skirmish from miners regarding the upgrade. If that's the pace of miners activating Taproot we should get there in a reasonable amount of time.
Some of them eventually had to recognize which is the one and only bitcoin that rules.

[DooMAD]

AntPool signaling BIP8 like SlushPool, that's some news now! Perhaps, I've been too critical a few weeks ago when I was expecting some skirmish from miners regarding the upgrade. If that's the pace of miners activating Taproot we should get there in a reasonable amount of time.
Some of them eventually had to recognize which is the one and only bitcoin that rules.

I'm working under the impression they're treating it like any other software update.  Some will opt to do it sooner, some a bit later.  I don't get the sense there are any political motivations involved in the decision.  More a question of simply when it's convenient timing to upgrade.

I could be wrong, but I think it might just be a case of people expecting drama when there may not be any.

[pawanjain]

AntPool signaling BIP8 like SlushPool, that's some news now! Perhaps, I've been too critical a few weeks ago when I was expecting some skirmish from miners regarding the upgrade. If that's the pace of miners activating Taproot we should get there in a reasonable amount of time.
Some of them eventually had to recognize which is the one and only bitcoin that rules.

Luxor says count me in. Another mining pool has joined the race and will be activating the Taproot upgrade through BIP9.
With this a total of 6 mining pools have already signalled towards activating Taproot.

[notblox1]

Are we going to see new P2TR address format with this Taproot proposal update or there is no change for this and we keep well know formats?

No wonder that Binance pool is rejecting Taproot, and they are now one of the largest mining pool.

[gmaxwell]

Are we going to see new P2TR address format with this Taproot proposal update or there is no change for this and we keep well know formats?

The malicious lie underpinning this question was already addressed here: https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/jwgbu0/mining_pool_operators_independent_miners_i/gd46yy1/

No wonder that Binance pool is rejecting Taproot,

That isn't true. Coindesk ran an article saying that binance pool was the only top-5 mining pool that hasn't made a public statement of supporting it, I'll never stop being surprised at the level of dishonest narrative spinning that happens in this "industry".

[Karartma1]

Are we going to see new P2TR address format with this Taproot proposal update or there is no change for this and we keep well know formats?

The malicious lie underpinning this question was already addressed here: https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/jwgbu0/mining_pool_operators_independent_miners_i/gd46yy1/

No wonder that Binance pool is rejecting Taproot,

That isn't true. Coindesk ran an article saying that binance pool was the only top-5 mining pool that hasn't made a public statement of supporting it, I'll never stop being surprised at the level of dishonest narrative spinning that happens in this "industry".

I guess for you it has a completely different meaning and I can sympathize with your mood. Let Coindesk be Coindesk, what can we expect from a media company which completely dismissed bitcoin for almost 4 years in favour of the infamous Blockchain Technology?
Like everyone they had to put their heads down and recognize that the only thing that matter is, of course, bitcoin.
 

[ABCbits]

Are we going to see new P2TR address format with this Taproot proposal update or there is no change for this and we keep well know formats?

P2TR? Pay to Taproot? Taproot uses Witness version 1 and it's Bech32 address have prefix bc1p

See https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0341

[fillippone]

<...>

No wonder that Binance pool is rejecting Taproot,

That isn't true. Coindesk ran an article saying that binance pool was the only top-5 mining pool that hasn't made a public statement of supporting it, I'll never stop being surprised at the level of dishonest narrative spinning that happens in this "industry".

I guess for you it has a completely different meaning and I can sympathize with your mood. Let Coindesk be Coindesk, what can we expect from a media company which completely dismissed bitcoin for almost 4 years in favour of the infamous Blockchain Technology?
Like everyone they had to put their heads down and recognize that the only thing that matter is, of course, bitcoin.
 

Asking a sincere question here: which is the dishonest narrative you are referring here? How would you have described the situation?
I am not seeing any dishonest narrative here, so I am asking because if you say differently, I am surely missing something here.
Thank you.

[gmaxwell]

Asking a sincere question here: which is the dishonest narrative you are referring here? How would you have described the situation?
I am not seeing any dishonest narrative here, so I am asking because if you say differently, I am surely missing something here.
Thank you.

uh. The way coindesk did-- binance pool haven't commented on it.  It's more surprising that any pool has: there isn't even published software enabling it yet.

It is absolutely dishonest to characterize having said nothing about it as rejecting (as several Bitcoin "news" sites that plagiarized the coindesk article but with the additional "rejecting" claim, or the poster above who was probably regurgitating them data).

If someone published the headline "The Pope rejects the assertion that fillippone is a human being with a soul deserving of life" would you consider that dishonest?  

[fillippone]

Asking a sincere question here: which is the dishonest narrative you are referring here? How would you have described the situation?
I am not seeing any dishonest narrative here, so I am asking because if you say differently, I am surely missing something here.
Thank you.

uh. The way coindesk did-- binance pool haven't commented on it.  It's more surprising that any pool has: there isn't even published software enabling it yet.

It is absolutely dishonest to characterize having said nothing about it as rejecting (as several Bitcoin "news" sites that plagiarized the coindesk article but with the additional "rejecting" claim, or the poster above who was probably regurgitating them data).

If someone published the headline "The Pope rejects the assertion that fillippone is a human being with a soul deserving of life" would you consider that dishonest?  

Well, Coindesk stated:

Notably, Binance Pool is the only top-five pool to not yet support Taproot.

https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-miners-taproot-schnorr-support

Looks a more "neutral" comment about the matter, "not support" is very different from rejection.
The "reject" part might be something added by other news let, or readers mis interpreting the news.

Ok, I might agree the reporting on those issues must be very cautious and accurate. "Caution" and "accuracy" are two very important qualities for a journalist, yet very seldom found in journalists!

Enough for the case, btw. Back on topic now!

If someone published the headline "The Pope rejects the assertion that fillippone is a human being with a soul deserving of life" would you consider that dishonest?  

I would like very much to be considered an AI life form, indeed!

[Wind_FURY]

I'm with gmaxwell. Plus the fact that the word "notably" was used, I believe Zack wants us to react as if there was some controversy behind Binance's absence of comment/show of support.

Coindesk is owned by Barry Silbert, initiator of the New York Agreement.

[gmaxwell]

I'm with gmaxwell. Plus the fact that the word "notably" was used, I believe Zack wants us to react as if there was some controversy behind Binance's absence of comment/show of support.

Sorry, I somehow created confusion.

fillippone asked "How would you have described the situation?", and I responded "The way coindesk did.".  Unbeknownst to me it seems people thought I was complaining about coindesk and so my response wasn't clear enough.

I think coindesk's reporting was well within the ordinary range of exaggeration that we've come to expect from the media. I don't have any particular problem with it.

At least 5 other media outlets are running rehashes of the coindesk story with headlines like "Binance Controls the Only Major Pool Rejecting Bitcoin’s Taproot Update" (I didn't want to link them to reward their sleaze with traffic, but it seems I have to link an archive just to resolve the confusion). This is the same dishonest spin notblox1 repeated (I assume it was picked up from one of these articles). This is what I was complaining about, not coindesk.

And sure... It is misleading that the coindesk singled out binance pool as if there was something going on there but only slightly.  I mentioned coindesk only to point out "No, their article actually they just hadn't made a statement, not that they were rejecting anything".  An article which is only slightly misleading is really the best we can hope for.

Regardless, I for one welcome our new AI overlord.

[acquafredda]

Nice, the site https://taprootactivation.com/ added a column which shows the current hashrate of every pool signalling Taproot. The total amount of YES is well past 60% as we speak, which is very good.
Let us see the positive side of the story and let the media talk.
 

[NotFuzzyWarm]

The total amount of YES is well past 60% as we speak, which is very good.

The better and more correct spin-free version of that is "60% of those responding vote yes".
That is far different than 60% of all pools... As with Binance and ViaBTC, for now some are simply neutral on the matter.

[9kek]

The total amount of YES is well past 60% as we speak, which is very good.

The better and more correct spin-free version of that is "60% of those responding vote yes".
That is far different than 60% of all pools... As with Binance and ViaBTC, for now some are simply neutral on the matter.

no, it's 60% of global hashrate.
At the moment it's 61.2%.

[Karartma1]

<...>

No wonder that Binance pool is rejecting Taproot,

That isn't true. Coindesk ran an article saying that binance pool was the only top-5 mining pool that hasn't made a public statement of supporting it, I'll never stop being surprised at the level of dishonest narrative spinning that happens in this "industry".

I guess for you it has a completely different meaning and I can sympathize with your mood. Let Coindesk be Coindesk, what can we expect from a media company which completely dismissed bitcoin for almost 4 years in favour of the infamous Blockchain Technology?
Like everyone they had to put their heads down and recognize that the only thing that matter is, of course, bitcoin.
 

Asking a sincere question here: which is the dishonest narrative you are referring here? How would you have described the situation?
I am not seeing any dishonest narrative here, so I am asking because if you say differently, I am surely missing something here.
Thank you.

I was not pointing at some sort of dishonest narrative actually. I was relating more to the point that after a long time of dishonest blockchain-not-bitcoin narrative they finally have to give bitcoin related news the right amount of coverage.
All good though, more and more pools are supporting the upgrade and that's all that matters.

[Wind_FURY]

The total amount of YES is well past 60% as we speak, which is very good.

The better and more correct spin-free version of that is "60% of those responding vote yes".
That is far different than 60% of all pools... As with Binance and ViaBTC, for now some are simply neutral on the matter.

Is it actually a "vote"? I thought pools signalling for support for the activation is merely to tell everyone in the network that they are ready for the upgrade, not a vote.