From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F48BC002D for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 13:42:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C62A8316F for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 13:42:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.402 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.402 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.248, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=q32-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cq8wGpIwDAqR for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 13:42:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-lj1-x234.google.com (mail-lj1-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::234]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F39782F4F for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 13:42:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lj1-x234.google.com with SMTP id q14so21999513ljc.12 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 06:42:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=q32-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=d/twDTuKNUaDA2/k6C3JZf8EWZJs3YGcJzkppaVhNyk=; b=3dKRR1iZq484LkLYpuQTIqCYYju5kLHZTCwXeOTq4/OFH+fAVQ3FoNAlMndhim9MVM kyRA7lIPlkvthZjqU1rf6jKwSRF1fNvh60naTeCTP/H6oh5tSCPwaJW7q5kcO4XeTdXq 4+cCbbOlFYhSIE6oNqHXZ9HQWGaZ3Gg+G5rkNJQJJjAdZUO/72oWeWeOfHtlBIuiTDr5 yeAOAB1S1qbrUU0qn5FfPcvkMJH07CGX0nI385HywHTr5LOqEFoI3MR/qi2ZFc/tCWh7 jBriJX1rX5qJAXecbfY90G26+KOURAlHCfQ14LXL4FA1tZyi2Ckjjw6BJFLT0TdbxHYs nYew== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=d/twDTuKNUaDA2/k6C3JZf8EWZJs3YGcJzkppaVhNyk=; b=ylwCaRle3l5ZCkGOpSOUUYEs8aHWjFpGilcFudtHZIGfHLsOi8/6F8Pv0iZeB+kNdb joTGtNBi1R5Om4qMFzWZW40rR0LAMvrHlGb/6uuGgCFKF8AyCcUZe+cQomeKMuUZov44 wAcWN+hpNT0koTCn6rjJ2sdFvdqtRNK+4DFcJ9rycjoS4L/YSPtNbGOukr7sdkNZNdJJ CwsITgbEnGcdCzUJmTobTrz/HkpntSMXHXjujQUTDhVRa+N4f8dBNjtzGzk/pplAxRVw Gv2dLfRuqHroZ8USayMOSI5m0mx9exE/XrmRdSjWbXm/3NSbTy4fm4zCrLkWh5SSCL1M zzPg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530N5ktbYbeKiTZC6YUi+4TMugCNUVuuAXSwbix8b3zgNmj8LniO y3DVO4RwM3j6WNqsqi9nkTHT6iYaara/FfsdNNoH878= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw/PBakeY6OxxtROWQJ14bmBxQmuOfvwVLi1IxSpzNE3vBsxlZGmV8ImivyE44bDyW2dt4hb9gUe2fjdwmIBGo= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b0ef:0:b0:24f:ddc:cfd1 with SMTP id h15-20020a2eb0ef000000b0024f0ddccfd1mr7753449ljl.519.1650980575864; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 06:42:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <9xz3fyWghx-hWNovENgiaU_FvTKLvGAWq9ooCoeGMsaXT1UV6k9zV9fzjVXj346GNqOPV0UQvlE4YRvOpbnkwk5xUiugraaNK4V2iALskGo=@protonmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Erik Aronesty Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 09:42:43 -0400 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c16c8405dd8edeb4" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 16:32:07 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] What to expect in the next few weeks X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 13:42:59 -0000 --000000000000c16c8405dd8edeb4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > 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 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 --000000000000c16c8405dd8edeb4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I would comment on thi= s 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:
<= a href=3D"https://github.com/JeremyRubin/utxos.org/issues?q=3Dis%3Aissue+is= %3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-desc">https://github.com/JeremyRubin/utxos.org/issue= s?q=3Dis%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-desc

I can give a summ= ary of the nack arguments here on one sentence:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 "I am res= isting a consensus change because we don't have consensus"

= It's lovely recursive logic

<= div class=3D"gmail_quote">------

=
The most cogent=C2=A0*technical* arguments again= st ctv seem fall into 3 camps:

1. APO i= s better for eltoo:
https://twitter.com/rusty_twit/status/1518007923896578048?s=3D20&= amp;t=3D8IUgni_i5jcfSlJ1Gy7T1A

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

(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 th= is (positive vibes) summary:

htt= ps://raymonddurk.medium.com/bitcoin-after-taproot-86c93fe5cc0c

N= owhere in there would anyone say CTV is "bad".=C2=A0 =C2=A0
Just that other opcodes will wind up being used more because they are mor= e purpose-fit for <insert use case here>

If only we had unlimited=C2=A0reso= urces we could have APO/TLUV;/CTV all ready to go and be able to evaluate t= hem on a level playing field / signet.

=
Does this sound about right?=C2=A0 =C2=A0A= m I missing something?


- Erik
--000000000000c16c8405dd8edeb4--