Topic: Taproot proposal - page 19. (Read 11516 times)
46% of nodes already upgraded to 0.20.1:
Come on, then! Let's get 0.21.1 underway so that this very much needed update can get finally activated.
I see in the release notes many Tor improvements too, which is good. Cool.
I see in the release notes many Tor improvements too, which is good. Cool.
0.21 is out, as widely anticipated Schnorr/Taproot code is now included, albeit not yet activaded.
We read the release notes.
Bitcoin Core 0.21.0 Released: What’s New
Aaron van Wirdum describes for the less technical of us:
We read the release notes.
Quote
- - This release implements the proposed Taproot consensus rules
([BIP341](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0341.mediawiki) and
[BIP342](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0342.mediawiki)),
without activation on mainnet. Experimentation with Taproot can be done on
signet, where its rules are already active. (#19553)
On his usual new release review:([BIP341](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0341.mediawiki) and
[BIP342](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0342.mediawiki)),
without activation on mainnet. Experimentation with Taproot can be done on
signet, where its rules are already active. (#19553)
Bitcoin Core 0.21.0 Released: What’s New
Aaron van Wirdum describes for the less technical of us:
Quote
Schnorr/Taproot Code and Signet/Regtest Deployment
Schnorr/Taproot is poised to be Bitcoin’s first protocol upgrade since Segregated Witness (SegWit) in August 2017. Having been in development for well over two years, the Schnorr signature algorithm is considered an all-round improvement over Bitcoin’s current ECDSA signature algorithm. In combination with Taproot — a clever trick to hide various conditions to spend coins in a cryptographic hash tree — the upgrade promises to offer more smart contract flexibility in a scalable and privacy-preserving manner.
The Schnorr/Taproot code is now included in Bitcoin Core 0.21.0. Barring unexpected developments, this means it will not be subject to any more change, which for example means that application developers could start designing software around the upgrade. In addition, Schnorr/Taproot is now available on Signet (a newer and more reliable variant of testnet, used by developers to test new Bitcoin software) and potentially also on Regtests (additional local testnet variants).
Schnorr/Taproot will not, however, be available on Bitcoin’s mainnet just yet. For this, the upgrade will first need to activate, which requires activation logic that isn’t yet included in this Bitcoin Core release. Activation logic is expected to be included in a minor Bitcoin Core release, possibly somewhere in the next months.
Schnorr/Taproot is poised to be Bitcoin’s first protocol upgrade since Segregated Witness (SegWit) in August 2017. Having been in development for well over two years, the Schnorr signature algorithm is considered an all-round improvement over Bitcoin’s current ECDSA signature algorithm. In combination with Taproot — a clever trick to hide various conditions to spend coins in a cryptographic hash tree — the upgrade promises to offer more smart contract flexibility in a scalable and privacy-preserving manner.
The Schnorr/Taproot code is now included in Bitcoin Core 0.21.0. Barring unexpected developments, this means it will not be subject to any more change, which for example means that application developers could start designing software around the upgrade. In addition, Schnorr/Taproot is now available on Signet (a newer and more reliable variant of testnet, used by developers to test new Bitcoin software) and potentially also on Regtests (additional local testnet variants).
Schnorr/Taproot will not, however, be available on Bitcoin’s mainnet just yet. For this, the upgrade will first need to activate, which requires activation logic that isn’t yet included in this Bitcoin Core release. Activation logic is expected to be included in a minor Bitcoin Core release, possibly somewhere in the next months.
Progress here is waiting on the deployment of 0.21.0 which is delayed, I think because it was discovered at the 11th hour that some P2P protocol update caused all existing BTCD software to instant-disconnect due to it erroneously hanging up on unexpected messages.
After 0.21.0 is out and stable then a 0.21.1 could be done with taproot activation.
After 0.21.0 is out and stable then a 0.21.1 could be done with taproot activation.
i doubt it's activated before Bitcoin Core (and other full node client) have option to signal taproot activation.
there is nothing to activate until nodes begin to run using code that implements BIPs 340-342, there is currently a tiny number of nodes (less than 100 out of 60-70,000) running the 0.21.0 release candidate, and as far as is publicly known, no-one (working on either Bitcoin Core or at the pools/miners) has what anyone considers a final version of activation logic either. So I agree, activation is rather doubtful before the release of a final version of Bitcoin 0.21.1, let alone Bitcoin 0.21.0
as far as 90% being enough to activate, I suspect it will be for the same reasons that I thought 80% would be: miners will take the conservative route of signalling the fork, so long as nodes adopt 0.21.0, not doing so carries the risk of getting any blocks they solve being orphaned from the blockchain using the BIP91 logic that is a part of BIP8 (the candidate activation logic for new soft forks for Bitcoin)
i doubt it's activated before Bitcoin Core (and other full node client) have option to signal taproot activation.
there is nothing to activate until nodes begin to run using code that implements BIPs 340-342, there is currently a tiny number of nodes (less than 100 out of 60-70,000) running the 0.21.0 release candidate, and as far as is publicly known, no-one (working on either Bitcoin Core or at the pools/miners) has what anyone considers a final version of activation logic either. So I agree, activation is rather doubtful before the release of a final version of Bitcoin 0.21.1, let alone Bitcoin 0.21.0
as far as 90% being enough to activate, I suspect it will be for the same reasons that I thought 80% would be: miners will take the conservative route of signalling the fork, so long as nodes adopt 0.21.0, not doing so carries the risk of getting any blocks they solve being orphaned from the blockchain using the BIP91 logic that is a part of BIP8 (the candidate activation logic for new soft forks for Bitcoin)
I just came across this tweet that Binance said yes to Taproot.
How much more is needed before it's activated? Is 91.05% not enough?
How much more is needed before it's activated? Is 91.05% not enough?
A question:
the current hardware wallets (like Ledger Nano, Trezor, ... ) don't support taproot and schnorr signatures.
Will a software update be enough?
Yes, though the fact that some use their own custom crypto libraries due to altcoin support and it may take them a little while to get around to writing it. the current hardware wallets (like Ledger Nano, Trezor, ... ) don't support taproot and schnorr signatures.
Will a software update be enough?
A question:
the current hardware wallets (like Ledger Nano, Trezor, ... ) don't support taproot and schnorr signatures.
Will a software update be enough?
the current hardware wallets (like Ledger Nano, Trezor, ... ) don't support taproot and schnorr signatures.
Will a software update be enough?
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.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).
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
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?
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%.
Also small miners and pools have been added. On a small side note, there is the growth of some unknown miner @ 2.3%.
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".
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.Quote
(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.
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).
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).
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.
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
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
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.
And even if we did allow them to turn it into a popularity contest, I'm pretty sure they'd still lose.
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.
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.
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:
They have their own useless playground called BCH: they should stay in there.
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:
Quote
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.
Jump to: