pull down to refresh

op_ctv still has no technical objectionsgroups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/a-v98N3QM_o
1017 sats \ 18 comments \ @kevkevin 14h bitcoin

Discussion has begun again on if we should activate BIP 119

OP_CTV provides the most functionality for how simple it is. There is also a technical audience that thinks that we should activate. There are also some proposals like LNHance that also incorporate OP_CTV into a combo of opcodes that they want to activate.
One might argue that some people may have reviewed OP_CTV and not found anything, but there is no monetary incentive to research and identify issues. The only thing is that there is a GIANT bounty of 5.5 BTC to be claimed if someone finds a problem with OP_CTV. It has been almost 5 years since the bounty was opened.
OP_CTV also provides the path to many upgrades to the Bitcoin ecosystem, some being
  • Vaults
  • Channel factories
  • Joinpools
  • Congestion control
  • efficent DLCs and more
So I urge the readers to learn more about OP_CTV and to take it one step further by asking your peers to activate OP_CTV.

Questions

  • What do you think about BIP 119?
  • Would you activate BIP 119?
  • Do you have any concerns about BIP 119?
  • Would you rather ossify Bitcoin?

Resources to learn more about OP_CTV

BIP Spec BIP 119 (regtest only) Bitcoin OpTech about BIP 119
Please boost and share this post if you think BIP 119 should be activated
it its worth noting there is a similar opcode OP_TEMPLATEHASH
write
preview
related posts
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 4h
Per https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Covenants_support, there are still some no 1 and a handful of weak 2. I think that with a functional demo on inquisition (or a similar signet), the notable no can be addressed and, if the weak opinions are correct that there is not enough benefit to be had on its own, this can also be used to show a combination.
Instead of building an activation client, build a signet.

Footnotes

  1. most notably jonasnick/e9627f56, which is comprehensive ↩
  2. mostly arguing that it's too small a benefit to activate it on its own (instagibbs/eeb9d801, delbonis/14d1802c). ↩
reply
1 sat \ 1 reply \ @jakoyoh629 12h
What's got the skeptics worried?
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @kevkevin OP 12h
They might be worried in general and would rather ossify than do something that may make sense
reply
1 sat \ 1 reply \ @ca 13h
Who said it was a technical question?
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @kevkevin OP 13h
What would you say the objection to the BIP is?
reply
0 sats \ 11 replies \ @justin_shocknet 11h
It has no technical merit
#1275977
reply
100 sats \ 10 replies \ @kevkevin OP 11h
In this post, you just mention that OP_CTV will be used for Ethereum like contracts, but you don't specify why that doesn't makes Bitcoin not used as money and instead for centralized applications.
Vaults, Congestion control, and efficient DLC's can be done in a self-custodial manner, which is enabled by OP_CTV, so I'm confused where that generalization is coming from. There may be SOME applications that are centralized but without OP_CTV, they WILL be built in a centralized manner because they cannot build it any other way.
Care to explain?
reply
588 sats \ 9 replies \ @justin_shocknet 10h
Ethereum like contracts, but you don't specify why that doesn't makes Bitcoin not used as money and instead for centralized applications.
ETH trash is centralized applications. So is every fake L2.
Vaults, Congestion control
Already debonk'd vaults and congestion control in that thread, those are absolute straw grasping nonsense.
DLC's
Haven't seen much on these yet but also sounds desperate, the whole idea of DLC's are defi adjacent and equally retarded. They still depend on an oracle, and what you're ultimately trading on them is credit, not money. Handwaving more defi jibberish as a use-case and calling it ok because its self-custodial is not technical merit.
This script kiddie attitude that Bitcoin needs to be part of an application stack for these nerdsniping projects for people that don't appreciate what Bitcoin already is has got to end. Let it be with this worthless shitfork.
You do realize its value is upstream of why you are even here? and that the only reason it is valuable is because its stable, predictable and resistant to being a sandbox for hipsters? Hipsters that can't appreciate a neutral world reserve currency for what it is and will therefore never be happy with it?
reply
75 sats \ 3 replies \ @ek 5h
Didn’t you build CLINK ndebits with the assumption that the one who wants to get paid needs to sign the events? So it turned out to essentially be a protocol for custodians, unless that assumption is broken, including the UX of it?
And then you complain about centralized applications? That’s funny, ngl
reply
21 sats \ 2 replies \ @Taj 2h
You waited till he was sleeping to throw that grenade, will wait till he wakes to watch the show 😂😂 ⚰️
reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 2h
I didn't wait; I live in a different time zone, that's all.
You can subscribe to my comment via ... to receive notifications of any replies.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Taj 1h
🤣🤣
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @kevkevin OP 9h
Do you think there is any soft fork currently that would be worth while or worth exploring or are you pro ossification?
reply
70 sats \ 3 replies \ @justin_shocknet 9h
I'm not dogmatically pro-ossification, I reserve the right to update the battle plan if the battlefield conditions change, but I'm not aware of any new op_code that solves a mission critical problem on the world reserve currency.
I think a lot more important things could be done on the shell if people weren't trying to bastardize art to fit in with the DeFi clowns. I attribute most of that to mis-aligned incentives, how long until you announce you've been working with Spiral or other NGO?
reply
92 sats \ 2 replies \ @SimpleStacker 9h
I agree with you, a lot of these L2 proposals smell a bit like feature creep to me, like putting the cart before the horse, make-work to justify the existence of pre-existing engineering teams or organizations.
That being said, what do you see as the current mission critical problems, and which ones are of a technical nature?
reply
67 sats \ 1 reply \ @justin_shocknet 9h
I don't see anything at the base layer, I know there's one or two consensus cleanup items that need a patch eventually, but even that narrative has been diluted by people that want to bundle in a bunch of non-critical items and spread fear so people act hastily.
If something is imminently critical, and real, the fix must be acute. In that scenario it will have no problem getting consensus. Ossification is a straw man they loom over people to say if we don't fix things the way they want today we'll never fix them.
Mining centralization is at spooky levels, but that's a market condition that is transient and already healing by the day.
Distribution is a concern, but not critical. That's a reflection of the real world economy, so again market driven, not technical.
Culture/incentives are probably the biggest risk, there's very few principled people that have the ability to do principled things. Fortunately, bitcoin's technical design is literally built to mitigate that cultural/incentive risk. Every time a script kiddie or NGO wants to change Bitcoin I appreciate it for what it is even more.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 4h
If something is imminently critical, and real, the fix must be acute. In that scenario it will have no problem getting consensus.
What makes you believe it will be easy to convince more and more users of anything, when I think we agree we live in a world where most people can’t think for themselves and just trust and believe mainstream narratives?
reply on another page
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @d680ecaa8e 4h
Everything becomes classic in this terminology.
reply