pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @justin_shocknet 6h \ on: op_ctv still has no technical objections bitcoin
It has no technical merit
#1275977
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
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
Do you think there is any soft fork currently that would be worth while or worth exploring or are you pro ossification?
reply
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
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
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