Erik Aronesty [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2022-04-26 📝 Original message:> > > I would comment on ...

📅 Original date posted:2022-04-26
📝 Original message:>
>
> I would comment on this point, but I'm not sure I'm "technical enough". I
> have to admit: I've never played tennis.
>

You are technicial enough to read the nacks... everyone is:
https://github.com/JeremyRubin/utxos.org/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-desc

I can give a summary of the nack arguments here on one sentence: "I am
resisting a consensus change because we don't have consensus"

It's lovely recursive logic

------

The most cogent *technical* arguments against ctv seem fall into 3 camps:

1. APO is better for eltoo:
https://twitter.com/rusty_twit/status/1518007923896578048?s=20&t=8IUgni_i5jcfSlJ1Gy7T1A

2. CTV doesn't have recursion, but i want recursion... which are swiftly
followed by arguments against recursion:
https://bitcoinops.org/en/newsletters/2022/03/09/#limiting-script-language-expressiveness

(I usually ignore this one)

3. TLUV is super cool for vaults, so why are we even talking about CTV when
TLUV is better?

I like this (positive vibes) summary:

https://raymonddurk.medium.com/bitcoin-after-taproot-86c93fe5cc0c

Nowhere in there would anyone say CTV is "bad".

Just that other opcodes will wind up being used more because they are more
purpose-fit for <insert use case here>

If only we had unlimited resources we could have APO/TLUV;/CTV all ready to
go and be able to evaluate them on a level playing field / signet.

Does this sound about right? Am I missing something?


- Erik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220426/fa300163/attachment-0001.html>;