From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD8B9C002D for ; Sat, 23 Apr 2022 14:48:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B7E1401C9 for ; Sat, 23 Apr 2022 14:48:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.398 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, 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: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=q32-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rcYiM42j_bt0 for ; Sat, 23 Apr 2022 14:48:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-lj1-x231.google.com (mail-lj1-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::231]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0B1C400F8 for ; Sat, 23 Apr 2022 14:48:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lj1-x231.google.com with SMTP id bj36so12806630ljb.13 for ; Sat, 23 Apr 2022 07:48:44 -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; bh=d1D0k26JNxjJCHMxc9mxvl0j8ZkyxWtVcHvWwCtiEP4=; b=Czv6yHe3zXBtaE7LLqYIreJZMVT1G4zIUuoz/oC4qrvv84vNPGXWXOELNELaxw8Afp qeu17b3yE2BwasQjVuJyvS0pZ+2RkKWFmcfryMuyXyB2//Gxz4Yd+UuSU0Uu9Ae1vUtf m8PPl78ZhbSlqKKmr0UZQZTBscBKDJgCLqFiAQj7R1OHLuv0bcbiyVDi9I9sVdWjxvsz NDMuuhVP8JfE0bEBJZ3jBMAFd4XPuKVrh7FIzoOjJ+r70k8dOaxxKENFpbT+oczd3jSR KkGD2ccaD7sKtWVI2Hft6jlr+pm4NluoAHmpQa3Ta3MuPWj3TQGrYEoawDfntPtXJ39n 4fdw== 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; bh=d1D0k26JNxjJCHMxc9mxvl0j8ZkyxWtVcHvWwCtiEP4=; b=oGpdsbDuPCYlhU0KZS60m9YRW/T2UdEhsTQLvx7CIBSiHW00/Xa7X4tLARfnn34Hls 14b8DuFMq75/TWnTyjB5B8/q3xfMkNlHa6El7OKD5zww4cGJ/QyVYznyKxiQD36DOWyH Qrj0lxSz317ZcLiIE/BswAIIEmZ1U2jj9Q0hAOIOGYuyJ6ozRvpA5O+HpP3XSkA09pMo ybr4JhzYY3HccyT16SdrVgvoiQn8IW6zTAAXPCmaES9rIYhECo482xDGglRNA+PPYEuC d7AcOrLgWV4MtEg4udFynXu7iQGhooHfp3kYe72cnvdfh8+IGYGTEG88vBX5/d5A+rEZ iSPw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530ayef6g4wEJ+CgErLc3UmO2YidGicDQ8eDHqLgzThYyavsXPCz XPzxf+LhAjz2y1Jvc3LgQylNkRoVyv9H6JV2W5TiLQo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJywLEVgkunSTK/FB4lq2U0KpCC0imzyEmJ1bmMvW/st9dcKJUJJh652UdK8no/FQlq0BIxdVOEwEymxuDKdW40= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:6a12:0:b0:24d:4a6:2a6c with SMTP id f18-20020a2e6a12000000b0024d04a62a6cmr5597718ljc.519.1650725322408; Sat, 23 Apr 2022 07:48:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Erik Aronesty Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2022 10:48:30 -0400 Message-ID: To: Billy Tetrud , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000076c91c05dd5370e8" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 23 Apr 2022 16:17:42 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] User Resisted Soft Fork for CTV 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: Sat, 23 Apr 2022 14:48:45 -0000 --00000000000076c91c05dd5370e8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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. --00000000000076c91c05dd5370e8 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Sat, Apr 23, 2022, 5:05 AM Billy Tetrud via bitcoin= -dev <bitcoin-d= ev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
@Zac
>=C2=A0 More use cases means more blockchain usage which increases the price of a t= ransaction for *everyone*.

This is IMO a ridiculous oppo= sition. Anything that increases the utility of the bitcoin network will inc= rease usage of the blockchain and increase the price of a transaction on av= erage. It is absurd to say such a thing is bad for bitcoin. Its like the ol= d saying: "nobody goes there any more - its=C2=A0too crowded".

> I like the maxim of Peter Todd: any change of B= itcoin must benefit *all* users.

This is a fair op= inion to take on the=C2=A0face of it. However, I completely disagree with i= t. Why must any change benefit *all* users? Did segwit benefit=C2=A0all use= rs? Did taproot? What if an upgrade benefits 90% of users a=C2=A0LOT and at= the same time doesn't negatively affect the other 10%? Is that a bad c= hange? I think you'd=C2=A0find it very difficult to argue=C2=A0it is.

Regardless of the above, I think CTV does in= fact likely provide substantial benefit=C2=A0to all users in the following= ways:

1. CTV allows much easier/cheaper ways of i= mproving their security via wallet vaults,


Maybe.=C2=A0 But there are enough security caveats that it probably need= s other opcodes too to be useful.


DLCs, channels

APO (BIP1= 18) handles these with a smaller footprint


<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px= #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
and many other use case= s.

Someone want to volunteer to make a table of use cases, proposed= opcodes (CTV, APO)=C2=A0 and a maturity and efficiency rating at each inte= rsection?

Hard to juggle= all this.

I'm not a= fan of the squeaky wheel method of consensus.

<= /div>
I do think most people believe some form of restrict= ed, well-tested covenants that don't allow for recursion should make it= into Bitcoin at some point.


--00000000000076c91c05dd5370e8--