PolyD_ on Nostr: Txhash is CTVv2. It would allow you to have more flexible fees and control what ...
Txhash is CTVv2. It would allow you to have more flexible fees and control what happens with the committed tx's. The problem is it can be designed a hundred different ways, and I've lost confidence in the developers who are pushing it for multiple reasons. The first being, they don't actually understand CTV, they see it as "limited" because it doesn't deal with sighash flags and sets everything in stone, so they're trying to fix a problem they don't understand. They try and say that CTV is flawed because it uses CPFP more often than RBF but they don't realize (because they don't understand CTV trees) that you can't RBF in those situations or it breaks the trees because the TXID must be immutable. Another big red flag for me (besides the fact that theyve been nacking CTV for years and not producing any code to replace CTV) is that they see zero risk concerns for behaviors that txhash can do such as TXHASH+CSFS gives you drivechains and MEV. The MEV can occur because of the exact flexibility that they desire from txhash. They're also not even aware that CTV has its own upgrade path, Rearden has made one called Template Key. The difference between txhash and TK is TK is a single byte mode operator while txhash relies on multibyte sighash flags. They have zero self awareness and honesty my patience has run out with them, I am finding them to be intellectually dishonest at this point.
Published at
2024-02-01 18:46:30Event JSON
{
"id": "997ed190fc0cfcf25c8f4f1e69e27329a618e93a878b33fb36d25f88141a628e",
"pubkey": "f7a8be339dd5cbbb6fe0dc47d4182c88a39ca3b7bc2e46ca3ae28c0f298cc97f",
"created_at": 1706813190,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"e41321652ac08e470eff9e2f5f4d8700941f41c492fd7a4499144b3d1bba387f",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"b2485bfa4988c4fbf0a92a4f6ed04a38c1d8f2b597de1470c0e26820ac1a6fb6",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f7a8be339dd5cbbb6fe0dc47d4182c88a39ca3b7bc2e46ca3ae28c0f298cc97f"
],
[
"p",
"ecf468164bd743b75683db3870ce01cb9a1d4b8ec203ed26de50f96255bbc75a"
]
],
"content": "Txhash is CTVv2. It would allow you to have more flexible fees and control what happens with the committed tx's. The problem is it can be designed a hundred different ways, and I've lost confidence in the developers who are pushing it for multiple reasons. The first being, they don't actually understand CTV, they see it as \"limited\" because it doesn't deal with sighash flags and sets everything in stone, so they're trying to fix a problem they don't understand. They try and say that CTV is flawed because it uses CPFP more often than RBF but they don't realize (because they don't understand CTV trees) that you can't RBF in those situations or it breaks the trees because the TXID must be immutable. Another big red flag for me (besides the fact that theyve been nacking CTV for years and not producing any code to replace CTV) is that they see zero risk concerns for behaviors that txhash can do such as TXHASH+CSFS gives you drivechains and MEV. The MEV can occur because of the exact flexibility that they desire from txhash. They're also not even aware that CTV has its own upgrade path, Rearden has made one called Template Key. The difference between txhash and TK is TK is a single byte mode operator while txhash relies on multibyte sighash flags. They have zero self awareness and honesty my patience has run out with them, I am finding them to be intellectually dishonest at this point.",
"sig": "60719fe4126630fbe736cbc2b7e54a70505fbc793c00a60223e5d892a8a724a6ff58e3df271ab1250738defdf99d193aff74c87e11fc718b7cfa628e2f19b197"
}