We're trying to gain some kind of rough technical consensus on bitcoin covenant proposals so If you're a bitcoin developer please express your opinion here in the link mentioned in OP.
Opinions on site so far: -Luke Dashjr -Jon Atack -benthecarman -instagibbs -reardencode -matthewjablack -moonsettler -1440000bytes
Otherwise if you're new to covenants please read these articles here:
Sorry you had that issue but very much looking forward to seeing your opinion on the site. Currently it's being managed by Floppy so you can also DM him or message him directly on twitter here https://twitter.com/1440000bytes
Do you support prediction markets with many possible outcomes instead of just Yes and No? If so, just one which asks "Which bitcoin soft fork will be activated first?" could be enough and the soft forks in the link are the options.
However, maybe multiple soft forks will get activated at once and I think a prediction markets needs to have exactly one final outcome 🤔
Actually, we just launched the Multiple Option today: #795358
Yes, you're right about the one final outcome for multi-option market. I think this usecase is maybe for set markets. That will take at-least 3-4 weeks. We're already working on it.
I don't understand why in the table of definitions at the top, the definitions of "deficient" and "wanting" reference "community support".
It seems like you're crossing the beams. I'd expect this evaluation to be based solely on each proposal's technical merits, which in turn would then help drive consensus. Having it contain this recursive metric of community support seems unproductive.
Also, some labels reference community support and others don't, so the scale is internally inconsistent.
We're trying to gain some kind of rough technical consensus on bitcoin covenant proposals so If you're a bitcoin developer please express your opinion here in the link mentioned in OP.
Opinions on site so far:
-Luke Dashjr
-Jon Atack
-benthecarman
-instagibbs
-reardencode
-matthewjablack
-moonsettler
-1440000bytes
Otherwise if you're new to covenants please read these articles here:
Why bitcoin needs covenants by Jameson Lopp: https://blog.casa.io/why-bitcoin-needs-covenants/
How CTV can help bitcoin scale by Shinobi: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/how-ctv-can-help-scale-bitcoin
How do we express our opinion? Do we need to create an account first? If so, the hCaptcha doesn't seem to load currently in Brave 1.62.165:
Will update and see if the issue persists. It works in Firefox 133.0 though.
Thank you for bringing this together!
Sorry you had that issue but very much looking forward to seeing your opinion on the site. Currently it's being managed by Floppy so you can also DM him or message him directly on twitter here https://twitter.com/1440000bytes
No worries, it's probably an issue on my side (outdated browser version).
Thanks! I will add my opinion when I did enough research to feel like it's actually worth something. This might take some time.
if anyone is interested in LNhance first check out the https://lnhance.org website for a general overview!
then check out the BIPs repo for more details!
BIP-119: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0119.mediawiki
BIP-348: https://github.com/reardencode/bips/blob/csfs/bip-0348.md
BIP-349: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0349.md
BIP-???: https://github.com/lnhance/bips/blob/paircommit/bip-PC.md
@mega_dreamer, prediction markets about bitcoin soft fork activations would also be cool 👀
Prediction markets are probably not a good idea to exclusively rely upon for consensus, but could be one of many metrics to measure consensus.
Sounds like a great idea to consolidate crowd/group think. We will add these markets. Which ones do you want to see first?
Do you support prediction markets with many possible outcomes instead of just Yes and No? If so, just one which asks "Which bitcoin soft fork will be activated first?" could be enough and the soft forks in the link are the options.
However, maybe multiple soft forks will get activated at once and I think a prediction markets needs to have exactly one final outcome 🤔
Actually, we just launched the Multiple Option today: #795358
Yes, you're right about the one final outcome for multi-option market. I think this usecase is maybe for set markets. That will take at-least 3-4 weeks. We're already working on it.
I don't understand why in the table of definitions at the top, the definitions of "deficient" and "wanting" reference "community support".
It seems like you're crossing the beams. I'd expect this evaluation to be based solely on each proposal's technical merits, which in turn would then help drive consensus. Having it contain this recursive metric of community support seems unproductive.
Also, some labels reference community support and others don't, so the scale is internally inconsistent.
can't fix it now, too many engaged.
This is why there's also a rationale section, there's now over 15 of them :)