0 sats \ 1 reply \ @supertestnet OP 21 Nov 2023 \ parent \ on: A sha256 function has been implemented for bitvm -- sidechains next? bitcoin
I like doing things without soft forks too
but if a soft fork improves the things then I'm in favor
I like things to be better, not worse
for example: "barely-working covenants via bitvm" is better than "no covenants at all"
but "fully functional covenants via a soft fork" sounds even better to me
a similar consideration applies to sidechains via bip300
if they are better than what I can make with bitvm then I want the better thing -- but I am also happy to do a barely-functional version with bitvm, because "something" is better than "nothing"
I like doing things without soft forks too
Nice!
but if a soft fork improves the things then I'm in favor
Ok.
reply