pull down to refresh

What's a good stopping point? Making the case for the capabilities of CTV+CSFSgroups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/-qJc1EWQzY0
1597 sats \ 5 comments \ @k00b 18h bitcoin
We will start by making the case that the capabilities "commit to the transaction spending this output" and "verify a BIP340 signature for an arbitrary message" are a good stopping point for a Bitcoin soft fork.
He explains what these capabilities compose into and covers alternative sets of capabilities provided by other potential forks. This thread is meant to just discuss soft fork capabilities of CTV+CSFS and alternatives - what the capabilities are and why we might want them. Poinsot implies he'll follow up with other discussions for "demonstration of usage" and "design of the operations to achieve these capabilities."
write
preview
related posts
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 16h
I thought the first response was interesting
We can consider narrower commitment combinations once we establish that broad commitments are a success for bitcoin. I reject the assumption some have that narrower commitment combinations might have more market demand than broader combinations, and that such assumptions might be an adequate reason to move forward with alternative proposals.
I think I agree that broader commitments will likely have more market demand than narrower commitments, but they also have larger risks. So it's kinda like two sides of the equation, the demand side and the cost/risk side and I think Poinsot is going for a minimalistic risk/cost approach here.
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @freetx 4h
My intuition is that its all about risk/reward, and I think there is huge asymmetry there which is unlikely to be satisfied.
Suppose there was a button on the wall and when you pressed it it dropped 15 potato chips out of it. Only issue is that randomly, one out of every 1000 potato chips was poisoned. The poisoned chip was impossible to tell from the regular: same taste, smell, shape...only it killed you immediately. Would you press the button?
The point being that even very small incidence of risk can become unacceptable if the outcome is dire enough. Thats basically how I feel about Bitcoin change proposals.
Not sure I would say I think the outcomes are as dire as "bitcoin dies", but simply the risk of something serious going wrong is more worrying than the promise of the cool-thing offered.
The risk doesn't even need to be "some serious bug is introduced". The risk could simply be the resulting fight itself. Imagine a world where 25% of network refuses to run new Bitcoin core CTV+ code and runs pre-CTV "knots" (or whatever) code. Imagine its a big public fight....is that worth it? Would you run "covenant code" to pass your bitcoin down to your heirs if you felt like 25% of the current miners -- and perhaps more future miners -- may refuse to process your transaction?
reply
100 sats \ 2 replies \ @Scoresby 17h
One wonders if it is true what some people1 said: the op return fight cleared there air and coalesced people into groups with clear priorities and now it is easier to build consensus for a soft fork.

Footnotes

  1. was it you who said this? I think it was an insightful comment and I'd like to give credit where it is due. ↩
reply
102 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b OP 17h
If you're talking about this, then yeah.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby 17h
Yes, that is it!
reply