Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2182C002D for ; Sat, 4 Jun 2022 00:30:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E08B84356 for ; Sat, 4 Jun 2022 00:30:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.848 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 mPi2GSYfDJCF for ; Sat, 4 Jun 2022 00:30:24 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-lf1-x12a.google.com (mail-lf1-x12a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12a]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FA4B8431D for ; Sat, 4 Jun 2022 00:30:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf1-x12a.google.com with SMTP id be31so15100187lfb.10 for ; Fri, 03 Jun 2022 17:30:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=ZwvUsSDizXAgjm+TLmR/8ymkrTWp/A/89KZKw07aUXo=; b=JKNPlBwzTO8pBfWg0oqCidB1rzSYFAXIqGdowbbCOE4rljjhEFVWdP6OTpulppzYaE 52jZjC2LifBFeKJWu5uKwjHeyA4/mrMftc3jVgtuM+yuliCKe/16BPnYcgW0o9RvCSFZ 7q4xTOtoZXbmRFSlISq/LKhTKWsTKkKD3fNLQIjJZ9NiZB3e/l2VTmg9VO2yi8atnBCK hy9iIyWOTZCuMV7Zum/FvJ/ipZjlqAqtJkb3HLrJkLtHn2zfa2QBZB96VgITzAz0Cp7y 2JxwQTErLrfMn+H+29p/IuzKap2irQ7rlJe9x58kU0RNFiIx3PGRyIrFWVJd0TqgpI/H reaQ== 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=ZwvUsSDizXAgjm+TLmR/8ymkrTWp/A/89KZKw07aUXo=; b=DSqisudjMgIElmW0yY0bNJzjbipFhWTsjaZXMHzdk1XADlf5zTRtN8mauyaikHluoB QtzwBtHEKHw+PryNLq9r+q7YQU8WPGmEuj9CNPVVIoQ7YmiQLhT69S1l0L8VRWI0LCk4 P5d5hUPIxQzHh7RXfSD8Qfz9gUngWgvMPNRYJAS0A5Y7UsM9L3xTtJf6debCGNaXJ7nd fycsMBwjE/ud6LlleNV5cEt+rDL6r86QXbP3pnobXsKaMe1uGKt71uM80GBJFIz73o8m QJr6/ifmuw9dRRooE8tJALvqnpVIZAQesvTg7neVABgEh9ZK3WENyX9a91jDeQxW0pS7 pdeQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533dNvC/BJCrsvfmS75mGn0SJ01FHx9wIfjUFVwM8Ahl4FEclUzh 9H0phLaNWugLpQ658h4Fa7J6Q6tS741JW7S9BDM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzysRLyJcyBdKZRCWMTvNanb03S8qIEEMt5Jvfb+BNefAfOvO2QUhAgzKcydjWPpHl65QWXvksZ/M3i/jS7ZG0= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:2607:b0:477:96ea:d387 with SMTP id bt7-20020a056512260700b0047796ead387mr8681616lfb.79.1654302622210; Fri, 03 Jun 2022 17:30:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: micaroni@gmail.com Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2022 21:29:44 -0300 Message-ID: To: alicexbt , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000025dff305e09458c7" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 04 Jun 2022 09:18:30 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable 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, 04 Jun 2022 00:30:25 -0000 --00000000000025dff305e09458c7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Totally agree. I couldn't agree more. On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 3:44 PM alicexbt via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Note: This email is an opinion and not an attack on bitcoin > > Covenants on bitcoin will eventually be implemented with a soft fork. CTV > is the easiest and best possible way OP_TX looks good as well. Apart from > the technical merits, covenants will improve a few other things: > > - Developers can build interesting projects with real demand in market. > - Students learn Sapio and not just solidity. > - Better tooling could be available for application developers. > - Maybe we see bitcoin developer hackathons in different countries. > - Demand for block space might increase, it wont be just exchanges and > coinjoin. > - Funding of bitcoin developers and projects might improve. Wont need to > convince a few people for grants. > > **Why covenants are not contentious?** > > Some people may write paragraphs about CTV being contentious, spread > misinformation and do all types of drama, politics etc. on social media but > there are zero technical NACKs for CTV. We have discussed other covenant > proposals in detail on mailing list and IRC meetings with an open minded > approach. > > All the developers that participated in the discussion are either okay > with CTV or OP_TX or covenants in general. > > **How and when should covenants be implemented in Bitcoin?** > > I don't think we should wait for years anticipating a proposal that > everyone will agree on or argue for years to pretend changes are hard in > Bitcoin. We should improve the review process for soft fork BIPs and share > honest opinions with agreement, disagreement on technical merits. > > I prefer BIP 8 or improved BIP 8 for soft fork but I won't mind anything > else being used if that improves Bitcoin. Covenants implemented in Bitcoin > before the next cycle would provide opportunity for developers to build > interesting things during the bear market. Ossification supporters also > believe there is some window that will close soon, maybe doing changes > considering each case individually will be a better approach. CTV is not a > rushed soft fork, less people followed the research and it was not > mentioned on social media repeatedly by the respected developers like other > soft forks. > > /dev/fd0 > > > Sent with Proton Mail secure email. > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --00000000000025dff305e09458c7 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Totally agree.
I couldn't agree more.

On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 3:44 P= M alicexbt via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
=
Note: This email is an op= inion and not an attack on bitcoin

Covenants on bitcoin will eventually be implemented with a soft fork. CTV i= s the easiest and best possible way OP_TX looks good as well. Apart from th= e technical merits, covenants will improve a few other things:

- Developers can build interesting projects with real demand in market.
- Students learn Sapio and not just solidity.
- Better tooling could be available for application developers.
- Maybe we see bitcoin developer hackathons in different countries.
- Demand for block space might increase, it wont be just exchanges and coin= join.
- Funding of bitcoin developers and projects might improve. Wont need to co= nvince a few people for grants.

**Why covenants are not contentious?**

Some people may write paragraphs about CTV being contentious, spread misinf= ormation and do all types of drama, politics etc. on social media but there= are zero technical NACKs for CTV. We have discussed other covenant proposa= ls in detail on mailing list and IRC meetings with an open minded approach.=

All the developers that participated in the discussion are either okay with= CTV or OP_TX or covenants in general.

**How and when should covenants be implemented in Bitcoin?**

I don't think we should wait for years anticipating a proposal that eve= ryone will agree on or argue for years to pretend changes are hard in Bitco= in. We should improve the review process for soft fork BIPs and share hones= t opinions with agreement, disagreement on technical merits.

I prefer BIP 8 or improved BIP 8 for soft fork but I won't mind anythin= g else being used if that improves Bitcoin. Covenants implemented in Bitcoi= n before the next cycle would provide opportunity for developers to build i= nteresting things during the bear market. Ossification supporters also beli= eve there is some window that will close soon, maybe doing changes consider= ing each case individually will be a better approach. CTV is not a rushed s= oft fork, less people followed the research and it was not mentioned on soc= ial media repeatedly by the respected developers like other soft forks.

/dev/fd0


Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--00000000000025dff305e09458c7--