pull down to refresh

Bitcoin.org Owner Cobra Warns on Upcoming Bitcoin Soft Fork in 2025news.bitcoinprotocol.org/bitcoin-org-owner-cobra-warns-on-upcoming-bitcoin-soft-fork-in-2025/
71 sats \ 15 comments \ @aliceandthewonderland 8 Dec bitcoin
The BIP119 soft fork is scheduled to be introduced for 2025, and personally, I hold a negative view regarding this matter. I believe that BIPs should only be implemented to address critical vulnerabilities; otherwise, they are unnecessary and can be driven by the interests of specific industries, such as mining companies and wallets. If we continue down this path, it seems we may end up resembling Ethereum's approach to smart contracts. According to a warning posted by Cobra on X, he expressed concerns that not enough attention is being paid to this impending change, indicating that a group of Bitcoin users, disconnected from the Bitcoin Core development team, are preparing to introduce this soft fork. What are your thoughts on this matter?
write
preview
related posts
100 sats \ 14 replies \ @ek 8 Dec
I believe that BIPs should only be implemented to address critical vulnerabilities; otherwise, they are unnecessary
Would you say SegWit which enabled the Lightning Network was unnecessary? And every BIP that would improve lightning?
If we continue down this path, it seems we may end up resembling Ethereum's approach to smart contracts.
This sounds like a slippery slope fallacy
reply
32 sats \ 13 replies \ @aliceandthewonderland OP 8 Dec
How would you compare the universally recognized benefits of SegWit to proposal like BIP119, which is primarily tailored to niche interests and lacks the same consensus on its necessity? Isn’t there a substantive difference between solutions addressing core infrastructural challenges and changes that cater to specific industry stakeholders without a widely acknowledged need?
reply
26 sats \ 12 replies \ @ek 8 Dec
How would you compare the universally recognized benefits of SegWit
The benefits of SegWit weren’t universally recognized at the time, that’s why BCH exists. Hindsight is 20/20.
to proposal like BIP119, which is primarily tailored to niche interests and lacks the same consensus on its necessity?
It lacks consensus currently, yes, but I don’t think scaling self-custody is a niche interest. Sounds like an oxymoron but I think most people overestimate what could go wrong if we add covenants vs what could go wrong if we don’t. When too much bitcoins is held at custodians it might be too late to undo.
Lightning payments are already mostly done via custodians1 and this problem is slowly creeping up to layer 1.
Isn’t there a substantive difference between solutions addressing core infrastructural challenges
What was the core infrastructural challenge of SegWit? Is it not very similar to why covenants are suggested?

Footnotes

  1. see nostr and Primal with their KYC wallet integration ↩
reply
11 sats \ 11 replies \ @aliceandthewonderland OP 8 Dec
While BCH’s existence may show that not everyone agreed with SegWit, it doesn’t deny the fact that SegWit was indeed addressing root technical issues like transaction malleability, block capacity, that were broadly recognized. BIP119’s aims may sound beneficial, but it’s not clear they’re solving a similarly core problem rather than introducing new complexity, without widespread agreement on its necessity.
reply
0 sats \ 10 replies \ @ek 8 Dec
SegWit was about scaling bitcoin while preserving self-custody. Covenants are about scaling bitcoin while preserving self-custody.
You need to look at the bigger picture and not get lost in the details.
reply
41 sats \ 7 replies \ @random_ 8 Dec
SegWit was about addressing transaction malleability.
reply
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @ek 8 Dec
To enable lightning and lightning is about scaling bitcoin while preserving self-custody
reply
30 sats \ 5 replies \ @random_ 8 Dec
Transaction malleability is a vulnerability all on its own.
No one was framing it around Lightning.
view replies
26 sats \ 1 reply \ @aliceandthewonderland OP 8 Dec
Ok, I get that BIP119 can help secure self-custody in the long run.
But if we go down this route, isn’t there a risk of ending up with a similar split as the block size wars, where some nodes embrace the soft fork while others refuse, potentially leading to another contentious chain split?
reply
26 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 8 Dec
There is. I’m arguing for covenants, but I’m not arguing for covenants right now via UASF.
where some nodes embrace the soft fork while others refuse, potentially leading to another contentious chain split?
Not if enough miners agree (MASF like Taproot), only if there is a UASF like SegWit which is probably what you mean.
reply