MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <RyYBRY3MJP_0b2YkCEUFBdP8u1A_cGSEEkDbzKK9k-rkINZrBaOL70L96iHR11bJhmkhAzuN6uZ1X8PQgz2wa8Us3-2OpNa4RbhSSprw_WE=@protonmail.com>
 <CALeFGL1=4PrA_ziTsoS9sUjGjfLr54AiMfM99uDV-Bau5Ab_eQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJ4-pEADrHf_YR5ZBfJW+eefKrp1iEj4wAi72UrwRSi9gaVP+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK_HAC8UrPSDoYU-b4KrZqGF3ndWqobPu2y_ddmCvTqNsbifBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGpPWDZgZgcK1noNPx7zFh5hs3=jW8ZC4fbCcbf0uXJX2RUw+Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGpPWDZgZgcK1noNPx7zFh5hs3=jW8ZC4fbCcbf0uXJX2RUw+Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2022 10:48:30 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJowKg+Pa78-h-gnD8JVDFNx76DR0NC51mU=YwwEMtpZJ_WvPg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.com>, 
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000076c91c05dd5370e8"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] User Resisted Soft Fork for CTV
Precedence: list

--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

<div dir=3D"auto"><div><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" =
class=3D"gmail_attr">On Sat, Apr 23, 2022, 5:05 AM Billy Tetrud via bitcoin=
-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-d=
ev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"g=
mail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-l=
eft:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>@Zac<br></div>&gt;=C2=A0

More use cases means more blockchain usage which increases the price of a t=
ransaction for *everyone*.<div><br></div><div>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: &quot;nobody goes there any more - its=C2=A0too crowded&quot;.</d=
iv><div><br></div><div>&gt; I like the maxim of Peter Todd: any change of B=
itcoin must benefit *all* users.</div><div><br></div><div>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&#39;t negatively affect the other 10%? Is that a bad c=
hange? I think you&#39;d=C2=A0find it very difficult to argue=C2=A0it is.</=
div><div><br></div><div>Regardless of the above, I think CTV <b>does </b>in=
 fact likely provide substantial benefit=C2=A0to all users in the following=
 ways:</div><div><br></div><div>1. CTV allows much easier/cheaper ways of i=
mproving their security via wallet vaults,</div></div></blockquote></div></=
div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"aut=
o">Maybe.=C2=A0 But there are enough security caveats that it probably need=
s other opcodes too to be useful.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=
=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquot=
e class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc sol=
id;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div> DLCs, channels</div></div></blo=
ckquote></div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">APO (BIP1=
18) handles these with a smaller footprint</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div=
><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><=
blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px=
 #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>and many other use case=
s. </div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div di=
r=3D"auto">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?</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Hard to juggle=
 all this.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">I&#39;m not a=
 fan of the squeaky wheel method of consensus.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br><=
/div><div dir=3D"auto">I do think most people believe some form of restrict=
ed, well-tested covenants that don&#39;t allow for recursion should make it=
 into Bitcoin at some point.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"a=
uto"><br></div></div>

--00000000000076c91c05dd5370e8--