Taproot proposal

[fxsniper]

For now, Bitcoin it is update to full Taproot already or not yet?

[1675023311]

1675023311

[1675023311]

1675023311

[1675023311]

1675023311

[1675023311]

1675023311

[1675023311]

1675023311

[pooya87]

For now, Bitcoin it is update to full Taproot already or not yet?

Bitcoin, as in the protocol, does not yet have Taproot because the fork has not yet taken place. We have to first reach majority support (ie. 90% of hashrate or more precisely the blocks that were mined to signal their acceptance of it) then it activates. The signalling was just started.
The bitcoin core (reference implementation) has the code for it and is ready to accept the new blocks containing Tapscripts.

[Karartma1]

We are over 20% Taproot signaling blocks and I am not surprised seeing that one of the largest pool Binance is doing nothing so far with 0/113 blocks.  

SatoshiLabs team wrote a nice article explaining how Taproot will benefit hardware wallets and it is easy to understand it even if you are not a tech expert.
Size of transactions with Taproot will be reduced resulting in more transactions per block, and it is especially important when there are higher number of inputs and outputs that will save a lot of time for something like coinjoin transactions and mixing coins.
For example if we have 100 inputs and two outputs time for transaction could be reduced up to 90%!
Multisig prvacy will also be much better with Taproot, but important thing is that more people need to use it if we want to have more benefits.
https://blog.trezor.io/how-taproot-will-benefit-hardware-wallets-fa43c0b6123e

Agreed. I have been watching this and assumed Sat Labs would be onboard big time.  I read through the website before coming here and I was going to post the same thing you did, LOL!

Shouldn't that apply to all wallets after taproot takes place? You know I'm no geek but I understood that those improvements are for, basically, any wallet. In the end, the functioning is the same for any wallet.
Great read BTW, it's always nice to stack more knowledge on the matter. (now i'm going to stack more sats. no pun intended)

[Wind_FURY]

With most of the Bitcoin Core developers remaining neutral,

You say a lot of weird stuff.   Bitcoin Core developers pushed this out, they're not "remaining neutral", that would be a terrible abdication of their responsibility as technical experts.

From my point of view during the Segwit “Saga”, when the call for the USAF was obviously becoming very necessary, most of the Core developers were neutral because of the risks. But reading your reply makes me very confident for the UASF for Taproot, if it’s necessary.

USAF SegWit is not the same as SegWit. The former is a "forced" change, while the later is a change that was achieved via consensus. It is totally reasonable for the devs to advocate for Taproot to be activate, expected actually. For them to advocate for Taproot to activate without clear consensus is another story.

The users/economic majority will have no right to demand for the type of blocks they want, if the miners will not signal readiness for the upgrade? From your point of view, the network should always be under the mercy of the mining cartel? If miners won’t signal for Taproot, we simply accept?

[ETFbitcoin]

Shouldn't that apply to all wallets after taproot takes place? You know I'm no geek but I understood that those improvements are for, basically, any wallet.

Yes, but article specifically talk about Taproot benefit on hardware wallet.

The goal of this article is not to simply weigh the benefits versus drawbacks of Taproot. Many such blogs have already covered the main arguments in detail, such as this approachable piece from SlushPool operators Braiins. Instead, we will consider what it means for hardware wallets, and what you can expect to see if Taproot is triggered in November.

In the end, the functioning is the same for any wallet.

Any wallet which support Taproot, which means it'll take few months before user can take advantage of Taproot.

[nibor]

Just about to start next period with about 40% support..

Unless Binance, ViaBTC, BTC.com and Huobi all jump on board in next few hours not going to lock-in in the 2nd period either.

Which is a worry - as they have all had 2 weeks to schedule updates (and many months to prepare) so indicates they have one of:

• Major technical issues with this update
• Actively disagree with it
• Other revenue generating development work (adding new coins etc...) that they regard as higher priority
• Total apathy to it all

If you are a miner using one of these pools I would encourage you to move to one of the others that are supporting it (see https://taproot.watch/miners - any pool with a green tick).

That should help if issues is 3rd or 4th on above list, and increase hash rate of a signalling pool.

Maybe LukeJr was right ..

[DooMAD]

The users/economic majority will have no right to demand for the type of blocks they want, if the miners will not signal readiness for the upgrade? From your point of view, the network should always be under the mercy of the mining cartel? If miners won’t signal for Taproot, we simply accept?

At least give polite discussions a chance first before we start making "demands" .  If you start seeing everyone as your enemy before they've done anything wrong, that's a great way to create tension and halt any progress you could have made by working in cooperation.

Remember, this is a collaborative network that functions optimally when everyone is in agreement.  It's not constructive to go looking for a dispute that might not exist until you cause it.

[Wind_FURY]

The users/economic majority will have no right to demand for the type of blocks they want, if the miners will not signal readiness for the upgrade? From your point of view, the network should always be under the mercy of the mining cartel? If miners won’t signal for Taproot, we simply accept?

At least give polite discussions a chance first before we start making "demands" .  If you start seeing everyone as your enemy before they've done anything wrong, that's a great way to create tension and halt any progress you could have made by working in cooperation.

Remember, this is a collaborative network that functions optimally when everyone is in agreement.  It's not constructive to go looking for a dispute that might not exist until you cause it.

“Demand” was the wrong word to use, I am sorry, but I believe you understand what the situation is. If the community came into consensus that it wants Taproot, then it should be activated. The miners can’t expect everyone to sit, and wait forever.

[icopress]

“Demand” was the wrong word to use, I am sorry, but I believe you understand what the situation is. If the community came into consensus that it wants Taproot, then it should be activated. The miners can’t expect everyone to sit, and wait forever.

Well, miners have a few more months left to support the update, so the main question is not "if they support" but "when will they support". In addition, I am almost sure that there is no chance that the activation will be disrupted given the share of Chinese pools, (unless someone has some pretty compelling political reasons). Although I'm not entirely sure whether a rollback is advisable in this case, given that against the background of an increase in the hash rate, such actions will lead to a loss of profit, (in the sense that Chinese miners are unlikely to favor pools with an ambiguous position).

[JayJuanGee]

“Demand” was the wrong word to use, I am sorry, but I believe you understand what the situation is. If the community came into consensus that it wants Taproot, then it should be activated. The miners can’t expect everyone to sit, and wait forever.

Well, miners have a few more months left to support the update, so the main question is not "if they support" but "when will they support". In addition, I am almost sure that there is no chance that the activation will be disrupted given the share of Chinese pools, (unless someone has some pretty compelling political reasons). Although I'm not entirely sure whether a rollback is advisable in this case, given that against the background of an increase in the hash rate, such actions will lead to a loss of profit, (in the sense that Chinese miners are unlikely to favor pools with an ambiguous position).

Of course, many of us regular users would like something like this regular taproot upgrade to just go through quickly, since there really have not been any descriptions of reasons to be opposed to it - unless you might just be against anything that might make bitcoin better - which we should anticipate that there are some miners in the space that are of that opinion, whether they add up to more than 10% to cause a failure to reach consensus might be another question.

So surely, I have heard of various giving the benefit of the doubt to miners and mining pools regarding the first difficulty period, but with the passage of time, if we are not really even coming close to 90% signaling, then there could develop decent amounts of frustration that seemingly obvious upgrades are either being gamed in a dickering around kind of way or even that there might be some incompetency in terms of some miners/pools figuring out how to signal in order that the 90% can be achieved and we can move on to the next stage. 

I do appreciate some activism from miners, node operators and even users in this matter, that may well result in some miners just getting pissed off (fairly early.... if we call "now" early) and to demand explanations or to join pools that are signaling for taproot.  Don't fuck around with these pools who are either passive aggressively failing to signal, incompetent to signal or not providing some kind of reasonable explanation why they are currently not signaling. 

If such non signaling pool is able to provide some reasonable and plausible explanation regarding their failure/refusal to signal and to provide a date, such as June 1 or some other date that they will start to signal, then sure, maybe no need to punish such pools, but otherwise, I would think that regular joe blow miners would want to get this update in place ASAP rather than fucking around (or is the expression "dickering"?) with some mining pools who are not being clear about why they have either not already been signaling or provided some kind of explanation with a signaling projection date that it fairly soon in the future.. giving some benefit of the doubt that there might be "other things" going on in the lives of mining pools (and regular peeps involved) blah blah blah..

At this point (only a few weeks into the "ability to signal"), two weeks^tm (or possibly slightly longer) seems reasonable and acceptable to confirm that the poole is going to start signaling for taproot. 

[pooya87]

If the community came into consensus that it wants Taproot, then it should be activated.

Miners are also part of the community, an important part too since they are the ones signalling for the forks not the "social media participants" who may not even own any bitcoin!

As far as signalling goes we know the hashrate percentages but here is the node percentages:
According to https://bitnodes.io/ only 7.60% have upgraded to 0.20.1
According to https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/software.html only 0.9% of all nodes upgraded to 0.20.1

If you are looking for a reason why miners aren't yet jumping on board in this first adjustment period maybe that's the reason.

[fxsniper]

Did Taproot decrease lower the fees?

I think bitcoin now still high fee, if Taproot make fee to low is will better and very great to use often

[gmaxwell]

As far as signalling goes we know the hashrate percentages but here is the node percentages:
According to https://bitnodes.io/ only 16.24% have upgraded to 0.20.1
According to https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/software.html only 7.40% of all nodes upgraded to 0.20.1

If you are looking for a reason why miners aren't yet jumping on board in this first adjustment period maybe that's the reason.

If so, there might be a miscommunication.  The minimum activation height exists because it's known that it takes MONTHS for a substantial fraction of the network to upgrade even when there is some urgent bug.  Plus, the primary advantage of having soft forks triggered by a super-majority hash rate is that they're safe to activate even if relatively few nodes have upgraded (so long as the super-majority hashpower has upgraded).

Maybe it wasn't your point-- but there is no particular reason to wait for nodes.  And, actually 16.2% of listeners on 0.20.1 already sounds pretty fast to me!

[DooMAD]

If the community came into consensus that it wants Taproot, then it should be activated. The miners can’t expect everyone to sit, and wait forever.

Yeah, I understand the point of contingency planning and being prepared for all eventualities.  But at the same time, we don't want to alienate anyone in the process.  If you start talking as though this is a foregone conclusion, miners could conceivably interpret that to mean you have no respect for their opinion, since you haven't really made an effort to find out what their opinion is yet.  If miners aren't supporting it, the first step is to open a dialogue to find out why.  It's a little premature to start talking about options like UASFs.  That sort of talk comes across as unnecessarily hostile.

[pooya87]

Maybe it wasn't your point-- but there is no particular reason to wait for nodes.  And, actually 16.2% of listeners on 0.20.1 already sounds pretty fast to me!

My point was to say that it is not just miners who take time to upgrade their backend and start signalling, it is also the "community" running full nodes.
I've also made a small mistake and reported the wrong percentage, it is actually 7.6% of listening nodes running 0.21.1 (the 16% was for 0.20.1) which is still good for this short time. The other one is also 0.9% which is not as good.

[gmaxwell]

FWIW, 22% of my peers claim to be running 0.21.1 or 21.99.0 (master), may be because I ban a massive amount of fake spy nodes which may be diluting the figures.  I also have tor inbounds which may tend to be more frequently updated.

(To be clear, I don't claim that this little sample is representative, just adding a bit of color)

[ETFbitcoin]

Did Taproot decrease lower the fees?

I think bitcoin now still high fee, if Taproot make fee to low is will better and very great to use often

Yes, because Taproot transaction size is smaller on many cases, although only noticeable on transaction with script which have multiple condition or have many inputs.

I think bitcoin now still high fee, if Taproot make fee to low is will better and very great to use often

IMO Taproot won't bring much impact towards transaction fee, besides it'll take few months to years before wallet supporting Taproot.

FWIW, 22% of my peers claim to be running 0.21.1 or 21.99.0 (master), may be because I ban a massive amount of fake spy nodes which may be diluting the figures.  I also have tor inbounds which may tend to be more frequently updated.

(To be clear, I don't claim that this little sample is representative, just adding a bit of color)

Additional information would be great,
1. What's the number of peer/incoming connection? 10? 100? 1000?
2. How do you ban fake spy nodes? A fixed list from someone else, automatic detection or manually created list by yourself?

[Wind_FURY]

If the community came into consensus that it wants Taproot, then it should be activated.

Miners are also part of the community, an important part too since they are the ones signalling for the forks not the "social media participants" who may not even own any bitcoin!

They are, but signalling for an upgrade is simply signalling their readiness, not if they want to allow, or not to allow to upgrade. It’s not only up to them.

As far as signalling goes we know the hashrate percentages but here is the node percentages:
According to https://bitnodes.io/ only 7.60% have upgraded to 0.20.1
According to https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/software.html only 0.9% of all nodes upgraded to 0.20.1

If you are looking for a reason why miners aren't yet jumping on board in this first adjustment period maybe that's the reason.

That’s why I believe there should be a fierce campaign for community awareness.

Are you OK if miners won’t signal for the upgrade?

[stompix]

BTC.com has also started signaling, this time more convincingly (5/20), probably that lonely block the previous period was indeed a test. With them on board, the problem list is down to two pools that could reach 10% on their own. Binance and ViaBtc, and I'm not surprised at all by the second one.
We're not going to reach 90% this period either, so next one, I just hope we won't have to wait one period/pool.

[nibor]

BTC.com has also started signaling, this time more convincingly (5/20), probably that lonely block the previous period was indeed a test. With them on board, the problem list is down to two pools that could reach 10% on their own. Binance and ViaBtc, and I'm not surprised at all by the second one.
We're not going to reach 90% this period either, so next one, I just hope we won't have to wait one period/pool.

Agree this period looking unlikely.

Other scenario though is that miners start moving from the non-signalling to the signalling pools. Which for them is a relatively minor change.