Taproot proposal - page 20. | Bitcointalksearch.org

gmaxwell

staff

Activity: 4284

Merit: 8808

Quote from: fillippone on November 27, 2020, 11:21:06 AM

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.

Quote

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).

fillippone

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 17063

Fully fledged Merit Cycler - Golden Feather 22-23

Quote from: gmaxwell on November 27, 2020, 10:54:03 AM

Quote from: fillippone on November 27, 2020, 10:11:41 AM

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

staff

Activity: 4284

Merit: 8808

Quote from: JayJuanGee on November 27, 2020, 11:09:52 AM

You pessimist!!!!
Tongue

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

JayJuanGee

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 11299

Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

Quote from: gmaxwell on November 27, 2020, 10:54:03 AM

Quote from: fillippone on November 27, 2020, 10:11:41 AM

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!!!!

Tongue

gmaxwell

staff

Activity: 4284

Merit: 8808

Quote from: fillippone on November 27, 2020, 10:11:41 AM

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.

fillippone

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 17063

Fully fledged Merit Cycler - Golden Feather 22-23

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

.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

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.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Wind_FURY on November 26, 2020, 02:43:50 AM

Quote from: NotFuzzyWarm on November 25, 2020, 09:46:22 AM

Quote

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?

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3948

Merit: 3191

Leave no FUD unchallenged

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Wind_FURY on November 26, 2020, 02:43:50 AM

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

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: NotFuzzyWarm on November 25, 2020, 09:46:22 AM

Quote

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.

Karartma1

legendary

Activity: 2310

Merit: 1422

Quote from: fillippone on November 25, 2020, 03:07:01 AM

Quote from: Karartma1 on November 22, 2020, 04:08:26 AM

Quote from: gmaxwell on November 22, 2020, 03:12:00 AM

<...>

Quote

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.
Wink

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.

9kek

member

Activity: 109

Merit: 21

Quote from: NotFuzzyWarm on November 25, 2020, 09:46:22 AM

Quote

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%.

NotFuzzyWarm

legendary

Activity: 3822

Merit: 2703

Evil beware: We have waffles!

Quote

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.

acquafredda

legendary

Activity: 1316

Merit: 1481

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.
Wink

gmaxwell

staff

Activity: 4284

Merit: 8808

Quote from: Wind_FURY on November 25, 2020, 05:42:57 AM

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.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

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. Roll Eyes

fillippone

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 17063

Fully fledged Merit Cycler - Golden Feather 22-23

Quote from: gmaxwell on November 25, 2020, 04:08:35 AM

Quote from: fillippone on November 25, 2020, 03:07:01 AM

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? Grin

Well, Coindesk stated:

Quote from: gmaxwell on November 25, 2020, 04:08:35 AM

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? Grin

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

gmaxwell

staff

Activity: 4284

Merit: 8808

Quote from: fillippone on November 25, 2020, 03:07:01 AM

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? Grin

fillippone

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 17063

Fully fledged Merit Cycler - Golden Feather 22-23

Quote from: Karartma1 on November 22, 2020, 04:08:26 AM

Quote from: gmaxwell on November 22, 2020, 03:12:00 AM

<...>

Quote

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.
Wink

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.

ABCbits

legendary

Activity: 2870

Merit: 7490

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: notblox1 on November 21, 2020, 03:12:15 PM

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

Topic: Taproot proposal - page 20. (Read 11651 times)