1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
|
Return-Path: <earonesty@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD8B9C002D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 23 Apr 2022 14:48:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-lj1-x231.google.com with SMTP id bj36so12806630ljb.13
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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: <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"
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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=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
<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 <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-d=
ev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> 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>>=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: "nobody goes there any more - its=C2=A0too crowded".</d=
iv><div><br></div><div>> 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'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.</=
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'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'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--
|
