MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <ddEQnfld862QINpJ03wcoqC2mNNV5Q_GmRziweKYbaUey2deOVrhtgWHhcyqlwkWd060fle-22hoiiBryYIPAW9ZsSQgozdqH2QVPgZ-5og=@protonmail.com>
 <CAGpPWDaBzY-Q+TZisRQTKtH52=zCVJsPyZQppLdYPW9iWJrWtg@mail.gmail.com>
 <9xz3fyWghx-hWNovENgiaU_FvTKLvGAWq9ooCoeGMsaXT1UV6k9zV9fzjVXj346GNqOPV0UQvlE4YRvOpbnkwk5xUiugraaNK4V2iALskGo=@protonmail.com>
 <MnfcEMqsO782F3nwY9kRUybw3EDi5aw5OYfc4lqcfKT28QY6-lAUzK5eWFobw3bID44IAXhx5dw2QYoJvlCU6gyeysCn8whHmIBPy_QP5xk=@protonmail.com>
 <CABm2gDq2w=oe94m5mmdhaUECfNwnXa8C5pQ_JaAJxCrndgjsWQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDq2w=oe94m5mmdhaUECfNwnXa8C5pQ_JaAJxCrndgjsWQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 09:42:43 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJowKg+MNMLKbB2z4cwT6HfXT7ZF2MW7JqRpN8-4wCusf7MJnw@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>, 
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c16c8405dd8edeb4"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] What to expect in the next few weeks
Precedence: list

--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 <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

--000000000000c16c8405dd8edeb4
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quot=
e" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204)=
;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"auto"><div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"backg=
round-color:rgb(255,255,255);color:rgb(81,81,81);font-family:&quot;pt sans&=
quot;,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px"><br>I would comment on thi=
s point, but I&#39;m not sure I&#39;m &quot;technical enough&quot;. I have =
to admit: I&#39;ve never played tennis.</span></div></div></blockquote><div=
><br></div>You are technicial enough to read the nacks... everyone is:<br><=
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</a><br><br>I can give a summ=
ary of the nack arguments here on one sentence:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 &quot;I am res=
isting a consensus change because we don&#39;t have consensus&quot;<br><br>=
It&#39;s lovely recursive logic</div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br></div><=
div class=3D"gmail_quote">------</div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br></div>=
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">The most cogent=C2=A0*technical* arguments again=
st ctv seem fall into 3 camps:</div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br>1. APO i=
s better for eltoo:</div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><a href=3D"https://twit=
ter.com/rusty_twit/status/1518007923896578048?s=3D20&amp;t=3D8IUgni_i5jcfSl=
J1Gy7T1A">https://twitter.com/rusty_twit/status/1518007923896578048?s=3D20&=
amp;t=3D8IUgni_i5jcfSlJ1Gy7T1A</a><br><br>2. CTV doesn&#39;t have recursion=
, but i want recursion... which are swiftly followed by arguments against r=
ecursion:</div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><a href=3D"https://bitcoinops.org=
/en/newsletters/2022/03/09/#limiting-script-language-expressiveness">https:=
//bitcoinops.org/en/newsletters/2022/03/09/#limiting-script-language-expres=
siveness</a></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_=
quote">(I usually ignore this one)<br><br>3. TLUV is super cool for vaults,=
 so why are we even talking about CTV when TLUV is better?<br><br>I like th=
is (positive vibes) summary:<br><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><a hre=
f=3D"https://raymonddurk.medium.com/bitcoin-after-taproot-86c93fe5cc0c">htt=
ps://raymonddurk.medium.com/bitcoin-after-taproot-86c93fe5cc0c</a><br><br>N=
owhere in there would anyone say CTV is &quot;bad&quot;.=C2=A0 =C2=A0<br><b=
r>Just that other opcodes will wind up being used more because they are mor=
e purpose-fit for &lt;insert use case here&gt;</div><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">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.</div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br>=
</div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">Does this sound about right?=C2=A0 =C2=A0A=
m I missing something?</div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br></div><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">- Erik<br></div></div=
>

--000000000000c16c8405dd8edeb4--