Erik Aronesty [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2022-04-23 📝 Original message:On Sat, Apr 23, 2022, 5:05 ...
📅 Original date posted:2022-04-23
📝 Original message:On Sat, Apr 23, 2022, 5:05 AM Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> @Zac
> > More use cases means more blockchain usage which increases the price of
> a transaction for *everyone*.
>
> This is IMO a ridiculous opposition. Anything that increases the utility
> of the bitcoin network will increase usage of the blockchain and increase
> the price of a transaction on average. It is absurd to say such a thing is
> bad for bitcoin. Its like the old saying: "nobody goes there any more -
> its too crowded".
>
> > I like the maxim of Peter Todd: any change of Bitcoin must benefit *all*
> users.
>
> This is a fair opinion to take on the face of it. However, I completely
> disagree with it. Why must any change benefit *all* users? Did segwit
> benefit all users? Did taproot? What if an upgrade benefits 90% of users
> a LOT and at the same time doesn't negatively affect the other 10%? Is that
> a bad change? I think you'd find it very difficult to argue it is.
>
> Regardless of the above, I think CTV *does *in fact likely provide
> substantial benefit to all users in the following ways:
>
> 1. CTV allows much easier/cheaper ways of improving their security via
> wallet vaults,
>
Maybe. But there are enough security caveats that it probably needs other
opcodes too to be useful.
DLCs, channels
>
APO (BIP118) handles these with a smaller footprint
and many other use cases.
>
Someone want to volunteer to make a table of use cases, proposed opcodes
(CTV, APO) and a maturity and efficiency rating at each intersection?
Hard to juggle all this.
I'm not a fan of the squeaky wheel method of consensus.
I do think most people believe some form of restricted, well-tested
covenants that don't allow for recursion should make it into Bitcoin at
some point.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220423/5adf57df/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:On Sat, Apr 23, 2022, 5:05 AM Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> @Zac
> > More use cases means more blockchain usage which increases the price of
> a transaction for *everyone*.
>
> This is IMO a ridiculous opposition. Anything that increases the utility
> of the bitcoin network will increase usage of the blockchain and increase
> the price of a transaction on average. It is absurd to say such a thing is
> bad for bitcoin. Its like the old saying: "nobody goes there any more -
> its too crowded".
>
> > I like the maxim of Peter Todd: any change of Bitcoin must benefit *all*
> users.
>
> This is a fair opinion to take on the face of it. However, I completely
> disagree with it. Why must any change benefit *all* users? Did segwit
> benefit all users? Did taproot? What if an upgrade benefits 90% of users
> a LOT and at the same time doesn't negatively affect the other 10%? Is that
> a bad change? I think you'd find it very difficult to argue it is.
>
> Regardless of the above, I think CTV *does *in fact likely provide
> substantial benefit to all users in the following ways:
>
> 1. CTV allows much easier/cheaper ways of improving their security via
> wallet vaults,
>
Maybe. But there are enough security caveats that it probably needs other
opcodes too to be useful.
DLCs, channels
>
APO (BIP118) handles these with a smaller footprint
and many other use cases.
>
Someone want to volunteer to make a table of use cases, proposed opcodes
(CTV, APO) and a maturity and efficiency rating at each intersection?
Hard to juggle all this.
I'm not a fan of the squeaky wheel method of consensus.
I do think most people believe some form of restricted, well-tested
covenants that don't allow for recursion should make it into Bitcoin at
some point.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220423/5adf57df/attachment.html>;