MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <RyYBRY3MJP_0b2YkCEUFBdP8u1A_cGSEEkDbzKK9k-rkINZrBaOL70L96iHR11bJhmkhAzuN6uZ1X8PQgz2wa8Us3-2OpNa4RbhSSprw_WE=@protonmail.com>
 <CALeFGL1=4PrA_ziTsoS9sUjGjfLr54AiMfM99uDV-Bau5Ab_eQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALeFGL1=4PrA_ziTsoS9sUjGjfLr54AiMfM99uDV-Bau5Ab_eQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Zac Greenwood <zachgrw@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 11:03:51 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJ4-pEADrHf_YR5ZBfJW+eefKrp1iEj4wAi72UrwRSi9gaVP+w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>, 
 Keagan McClelland <keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f5d61e05dd3a8103"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] User Resisted Soft Fork for CTV
Precedence: list

--000000000000f5d61e05dd3a8103
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 at 09:56, Keagan McClelland via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> I think that trying to find ways to activate non-invasive changes should
> be everyone's goal, *even if* they personally may not have an immediate u=
se
> case
>

A change that increases the number of use cases of Bitcoin affects all
users and is *not* non-invasive. More use cases means more blockchain usage
which increases the price of a transaction for *everyone*.

I like the maxim of Peter Todd: any change of Bitcoin must benefit *all*
users. This means that every change must have well-defined and transparent
benefits. Personally I believe that the only additions to the protocol that
would still be acceptable are those that clearly benefit layer 2 solutions
such as LN *and* do not carry the dangerous potential of getting abused by
freeloaders selling commercial services on top of =E2=80=9Cfree=E2=80=9D et=
ernal storage on
the blockchain.

Zac

>

--000000000000f5d61e05dd3a8103
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div>On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 at 09:56, Keagan McClelland via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a=
 href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.li=
nuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><=
blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-l=
eft-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rg=
b(204,204,204)"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"auto">I think that trying to f=
ind ways to activate non-invasive changes should be everyone&#39;s goal, *e=
ven if* they personally may not have an immediate use case</div></div></blo=
ckquote><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">A change that increas=
es the number of use cases of Bitcoin affects all users and is *not* non-in=
vasive. More use cases means more blockchain usage which increases the pric=
e of a transaction for *everyone*.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div di=
r=3D"auto">I like the maxim of Peter Todd: any change of Bitcoin must benef=
it *all* users. This means that every change must have well-defined and tra=
nsparent benefits. Personally I believe that the only additions to the prot=
ocol that would still be acceptable are those that clearly benefit layer 2 =
solutions such as LN *and* do not carry the dangerous potential of getting =
abused by freeloaders selling commercial services on top of =E2=80=9Cfree=
=E2=80=9D eternal storage on the blockchain.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></d=
iv><div dir=3D"auto">Zac</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"ma=
rgin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;paddin=
g-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D=
"auto"></div></div></blockquote></div></div>

--000000000000f5d61e05dd3a8103--