Gradually, and then suddenly.This past weekend, many Bitcoin developers across a broad range of camps gave explicit support for a specific soft fork proposal. Could this may mark the beginning of Bitcoin’s next upgrade?
pull down to refresh
related posts
46 sats \ 0 replies \ @OT 5 Mar
If it improves LN, I'm happy.
reply
11 sats \ 5 replies \ @standardcrypto 5 Mar
OP_CTV (safe scalability) yes, OP_CAT (turing complete shitcoinery) no.
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @justin_shocknet 23h
CTV doesn't scale anything, that's a myth pushed by scammers
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @standardcrypto 19h
I don't like Taproot wizards either. but just because they support op_ctv doesn't automatically invalidate it.
there is some icky coalition forming though.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @justin_shocknet 19h
afaik they aren't scamming, they're pretty up front about attacking Bitcoin
I'm referring to the Ark startups, far more insidious
reply
88 sats \ 1 reply \ @standardcrypto 14h
IIUC, CTV enables ARK (maybe bad, I am agnostic) but also enables much improved channel factories. We probably don't currently need channel factories, but it's nice to have the upgrade path cleared without future softfork drama, if we can get it wrangled now.
"Channel factories by themselves do not require any soft-forks to be possible. However, the simple channel factories described above are probably impractical beyond small numbers of parties due to the coordination required to actually achieve a scaling benefit. Thus, covenant proposals such as OP_Evict or CTV (via txout trees) aim to allow more fine-grained outcomes where individual parties can be forced on-chain, without forcing everyone on-chain at once."
https://petertodd.org/2024/covenant-dependent-layer-2-review#potential-soft-forks
I don't care about Ark (or even understand it tbh) but I am all in on lightning.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 9h
Nobody is using channel batching and that has less coordination issues than factories... because channels are not bottlnecked and never will be. All scaling arguments are based on a flawed presupposition that the bottleneck is throughput, this is because retards base numbers of billions of people.
The only scaling limitation Bitcoin has is supply, as in, not enough people will ever be able to own enough sats (5-6 digits worth of sats) to transact, even if the chain is at a perpetual 1 sat/byte due to gigameg blocks or other shitfork like CTV.
There are at most only a billion households/businesses that will ever be able to use real Bitcoin, that may even be a generous estimate given the size of many stockpiles.
reply on another page
201 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 5 Mar
All the astroturf blogs set up by these op_next scammers can't change the fact that VTXO's are not Bitcoin, and their naive investors will eventually realize they could have just built a generic custodial wallet for a fraction of the price
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @_Bubble_2009 5 Mar
I hope that those two BIP are rejected.
I don't think that is safe apply any soft-fork it isn't extremely necessary to increase security.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @sangekrypto 5 Mar
Yes, if I see more and more Bitcoin discussion groups being created, the important thing is that we have to be sure.
reply