On Sat, Apr 23, 2022, 5:05 AM Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@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.