Taproot proposal

[DooMAD]

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.

After looking at some BIP about activation method or activation for specific thing, i found out word "vote" is never used. But just like bitcoin can be perceived as investment or gold, people also can perceive activation as vote or explicit support.

I guess there are a few distinctions, particularly when it comes to softforks.  With a "vote", participants are generally bound to honour the outcome, even though they might disagree with it.  Whereas the outcome of Taproot activation is effectively an ongoing 'opt-in'.  There is nothing that mandates its usage.  It's more analogous to an invitation to an event with no end date.  A "take it or leave it" kinda deal.

[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.

After looking at some BIP about activation method or activation for specific thing, i found out word "vote" is never used. But just like bitcoin can be perceived as investment or gold, people also can perceive activation as vote or explicit support.

But the question is "is it actually a vote", not "is it perceived as a vote".

OK, "A miner signalling activation for an upgrade is not a vote, but merely telling the network that it's ready". Is that statement wrong?

[Carlton Banks]

it's "none of the above", as there's no version of Bitcoin Core released yet with any activation logic.

The pools/miners can suggest their preference for the activation parameters, and the devs can code their choice of activation parameters into the core bitcoin daemon, but if the users running network nodes don't like it, it's all moot.

[fillippone]

Another day, another support (so, don’t call it vote):
We are now at almost 75% of the total hashpower.

.

[gmaxwell]

Another day, another support (so, don’t call it vote):
We are now at almost 75% of the total hashpower.

You can expect a heavily funded effort to obstruct this and any further improvements to Bitcoin to start in earnest now.

[JayJuanGee]

Another day, another support (so, don’t call it vote):
We are now at almost 75% of the total hashpower.

You can expect a heavily funded effort to obstruct this and any further improvements to Bitcoin to start in earnest now.

You pessimist!!!!

 

[gmaxwell]

You pessimist!!!!
 

You say pessimist, I say realist with foresight.  The community has made it clear that scamcoin conflicted bad actors like Bitmain will not be permitted to obstruct this directly -- so the next obvious move is a proxy war.


https://twitter.com/nikzh/status/1332246112196063232

[fillippone]

Another day, another support (so, don’t call it vote):
We are now at almost 75% of the total hashpower.

You can expect a heavily funded effort to obstruct this and any further improvements to Bitcoin to start in earnest now.

I think market wants this upgrade. 75% of hash rate is supporting it.
If there were a future on activation, how do you think it will quote?

I do remember in SegWit/NYA agreement battle that was the NYA agreement future trading at 0.1 that made the fork fail as the miners realised the huge loss they would have incurred in. I think the same will happen here: sooner or later the “rebels” will eventually cede to the majority of nodes, who have the power to make an unwanted token fail trough economic disincentive.

[gmaxwell]

I think market wants this upgrade. 75% of hash rate is supporting it.

Follow the link, the apparent strategy is to use astroturf to convince the market that the market doesn't want it.

If there were a future on activation, how do you think ti will quite?

My belief that there will be a fight is not a belief it won't activate.

At the moment I would only bet against activation to the extent that I could do so to hedge a position that bitcoin's price would be sustained and increased in the future.  (Because I do think it would be a negative sign for bitcoin's long term success if an attack on taproot is successful).

[acquafredda]

Holy crap! Why on Earth there needs to be politics in everything?
I sincerely cannot stand another segwit feudal fight, really. I hope you are wrong on this one gmaxwell, I truly want, for once, that you are wrong.
On the tweetstorm, slide 31, we read:

As Taproot is activated by miners rather than developers or exchanges, miners are strongly advised to run their own analysis and block the Taproot upgrade!

If someone advises me to do my own research then I will do as I feel correct while he is blatantly advising to block the upgrade.
They have their own useless playground called BCH: they should stay in there.

[Karartma1]

It is a pathetic attempt to block a very much needed upgrade. Maybe, they can't cope with the fact that they have created and supported a fork which nobody wants to use.
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-bch.html#3y
It looks dead to time, the world wants the best protocol to transact with, no matter the price. Otherwise, there is always an excellent Dogecoin to be used. Much space, such cheap.

[DooMAD]

The main thing to remember is that they have no technical arguments against Taproot.  It's just a lame attempt at social manipulation.  Entirely hollow.

And even if we did allow them to turn it into a popularity contest, I'm pretty sure they'd still lose. 

[Carlton Banks]

if the information reported on poolin's old fashioned poll (well, seemingly twitter threads at least) is accurate, then pools representing 82% of hashrate are broadly in favor.

Is it feasible that 5% can be found to oppose it? The chance of a BIP91/BIP148 re-run is high if such a high number were signalling once any activation period begins, I sense that miners will not risk getting caught mining blocks that could get orphaned for at all long, safest action would be to prepare your node then start signalling

[Wind_FURY]

After looking at some BIP about activation method or activation for specific thing, i found out word "vote" is never used. But just like bitcoin can be perceived as investment or gold, people also can perceive activation as vote or explicit support.

But the question is "is it actually a vote", not "is it perceived as a vote".

If you're looking for formal definition, then the answer is no since it means miner ready for the change. See https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/56924

That was the point. Signalling wasn't meant as a vote, but only literally what it's called, " a signal for readiness to the update". I believe BIP148 taught us this lesson.

[acquafredda]

What if Binance pool is trying to get some self esteem here like "hey guys we know almost 82% of the bitcoin mining pools are ready for the upgrade but, you know, we are binance we need to be recognised as those that allowed the upgrade to be implemented".
If you really think about it, binance is now controlling whether the threshold gets reached or not (I don't see any other pool having so much hashing power).

[pooya87]

If you really think about it, binance is now controlling whether the threshold gets reached or not

If all the other pools were signalling for a proposal except one, then the only thing that one pool controls would be how much of their hashrate they are going to lose because the miners connecting to them (in this case the 10% of the total hashrate connecting to Binance pool) will switch to another pool that is going with the majority.

(I don't see any other pool having so much hashing power).

So much?!
1. F2Pool        21.09 %
2. Poolin        12.54 %
3. BTC.com       11.24 %
4. Binance Pool  10.25 %
5. AntPool       9.75 %
Granted it is up there in the list but 10% isn't really called "so much". And it's a pool so they don't really "control" the hash power.

[acquafredda]

No wait : I guess I was not clear enough because I was referring to the rest of the undecided pools being Binance the largest. Thanks for pointing that out, I supposed it was clear what I meant. My message is valid, even if as you say they don't really control the hash power as a pool with that % they have some "power".

[acquafredda]

There have been a few updates on https://taprootactivation.com/ while total hashrate (1 month average) in support of Taproot floats @ 79.82 %
Also small miners and pools have been added.  On a small side note, there is the growth of some unknown miner @ 2.3%.

[Wind_FURY]

What's the drama with Binance Pool? All the big pools are currently signalling their support except them. From what I know of CZ, he will probably want to get some attention again and be "the savior?

[acquafredda]

What's the drama with Binance Pool? All the big pools are currently signalling their support except them. From what I know of CZ, he will probably want to get some attention again and be "the savior?

What if Binance pool is trying to get some self esteem here like "hey guys we know almost 82% of the bitcoin mining pools are ready for the upgrade but, you know, we are binance we need to be recognised as those that allowed the upgrade to be implemented".
If you really think about it, binance is now controlling whether the threshold gets reached or not (I don't see any other pool having so much hashing power).

Yep, that is exactly what I thought earlier.

Considering the latest CZ tweet about implementing SegWit (soon, soon) https://twitter.com/cz_binance/status/1339897009885466626
I guess there is no real conspiracy behind their current lack of support: they are being just slow