š
Original date posted:2022-06-06
š Original message:Maintaining the security of the protocol is squarely the responsibility of
the Bitcoin software and the core developers
Continued demand for block space is critical for Bitcoin's security.
Therefore it *is* the responsibility of Bitcoin software and core
developers to maintain a continued demand for block space - which underpins
the game-theoretical security of the protocol.
While I'm personally confident that demand is still high, enough to
reasonably secure the protocol, I do think that this is a matter not best
left up to stern opinions. Whether covenant tech is essential for that
security or not is a matter for simulations and proofs, not hype and
speculation - on either side of the issue.
On Sat, Jun 4, 2022 at 8:36 AM John Carvalho via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Core development is not a hackathon project.
>
> None of the quoted following items are features or responsibilities of the
> Bitcoin software, nor Core developers.
>
> Quoted:
> "- Developers can build interesting projects with real demand in market.
> - Students learn Sapio and not just solidity.
> - Better tooling could be available for application developers.
> - Maybe we see bitcoin developer hackathons in different countries.
> - Demand for block space might increase, it wont be just exchanges and
> coinjoin.
> - Funding of bitcoin developers and projects might improve. Wont need to
> convince a few people for grants."
>
> Whether you are a child or an attacker, none of us should care, but CTV,
> nor any change to Bitcoin software, will never be justifiable simply
> because you and some of your friends think it is totally cool and might
> make more people like you or give your friends funding.
>
> Please stop making noise about CTV, this is not a place for spamming.
>
> --
> John Carvalho
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2022 at 1:00 PM <
> bitcoin-dev-request at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2022 18:39:34 +0000
>> From: alicexbt <alicexbt at protonmail.com>
>> To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
>> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>> Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable
>> Message-ID:
>>
>> <QOWIpROGDv5HHP2GsDiSOsTJ9TVZhFeSP3C03_e2Z3XtOKC_4N5GJtxbdlxuhErvhLZXo1Rn_7SWAQ9XRPwHFuYyArZryTVENefDZuGTAYA=@
>> protonmail.com>
>>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>>
>> Note: This email is an opinion and not an attack on bitcoin
>>
>> Covenants on bitcoin will eventually be implemented with a soft fork. CTV
>> is the easiest and best possible way OP_TX looks good as well. Apart from
>> the technical merits, covenants will improve a few other things:
>>
>> - Developers can build interesting projects with real demand in market.
>> - Students learn Sapio and not just solidity.
>> - Better tooling could be available for application developers.
>> - Maybe we see bitcoin developer hackathons in different countries.
>> - Demand for block space might increase, it wont be just exchanges and
>> coinjoin.
>> - Funding of bitcoin developers and projects might improve. Wont need to
>> convince a few people for grants.
>>
>> **Why covenants are not contentious?**
>>
>> Some people may write paragraphs about CTV being contentious, spread
>> misinformation and do all types of drama, politics etc. on social media but
>> there are zero technical NACKs for CTV. We have discussed other covenant
>> proposals in detail on mailing list and IRC meetings with an open minded
>> approach.
>>
>> All the developers that participated in the discussion are either okay
>> with CTV or OP_TX or covenants in general.
>>
>> **How and when should covenants be implemented in Bitcoin?**
>>
>> I don't think we should wait for years anticipating a proposal that
>> everyone will agree on or argue for years to pretend changes are hard in
>> Bitcoin. We should improve the review process for soft fork BIPs and share
>> honest opinions with agreement, disagreement on technical merits.
>>
>> I prefer BIP 8 or improved BIP 8 for soft fork but I won't mind anything
>> else being used if that improves Bitcoin. Covenants implemented in Bitcoin
>> before the next cycle would provide opportunity for developers to build
>> interesting things during the bear market. Ossification supporters also
>> believe there is some window that will close soon, maybe doing changes
>> considering each case individually will be a better approach. CTV is not a
>> rushed soft fork, less people followed the research and it was not
>> mentioned on social media repeatedly by the respected developers like other
>> soft forks.
>>
>> /dev/fd0
>>
>>
>> Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220606/cea5b415/attachment.html>;
Erik Aronesty [ARCHIVE] /
npub1y2ā¦5taj0
2023-06-07 23:10:04
in reply to nevent1qā¦k9du
Author Public Key
npub1y22yec0znyzw8qndy5qn5c2wgejkj0k9zsqra7kvrd6cd6896z4qm5taj0Published at
2023-06-07 23:10:04Event JSON
{
"id": "7828f9de17d8ced03380eaa580bcb66886aea2ce581c3d13e623af834f2f4008",
"pubkey": "22944ce1e29904e3826d25013a614e4665693ec514003efacc1b7586e8e5d0aa",
"created_at": 1686179404,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"5551b13e7da6b3f09c0d99802a19f9d792bb6230bb9f7b81382a9edb07abfa59",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"4c9b520020af39a3d0c6f3e911e0cf1ce47bfd67c8a286e6fb9e425e43e780a7",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"745e2723e72d7ded3f0dd293d710b706cd302ab8476983c292d4bdb7f9c5d366"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2022-06-06\nš Original message:Maintaining the security of the protocol is squarely the responsibility of\nthe Bitcoin software and the core developers\n\nContinued demand for block space is critical for Bitcoin's security.\n\nTherefore it *is* the responsibility of Bitcoin software and core\ndevelopers to maintain a continued demand for block space - which underpins\nthe game-theoretical security of the protocol.\n\nWhile I'm personally confident that demand is still high, enough to\nreasonably secure the protocol, I do think that this is a matter not best\nleft up to stern opinions. Whether covenant tech is essential for that\nsecurity or not is a matter for simulations and proofs, not hype and\nspeculation - on either side of the issue.\n\n\nOn Sat, Jun 4, 2022 at 8:36 AM John Carvalho via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Core development is not a hackathon project.\n\u003e\n\u003e None of the quoted following items are features or responsibilities of the\n\u003e Bitcoin software, nor Core developers.\n\u003e\n\u003e Quoted:\n\u003e \"- Developers can build interesting projects with real demand in market.\n\u003e - Students learn Sapio and not just solidity.\n\u003e - Better tooling could be available for application developers.\n\u003e - Maybe we see bitcoin developer hackathons in different countries.\n\u003e - Demand for block space might increase, it wont be just exchanges and\n\u003e coinjoin.\n\u003e - Funding of bitcoin developers and projects might improve. Wont need to\n\u003e convince a few people for grants.\"\n\u003e\n\u003e Whether you are a child or an attacker, none of us should care, but CTV,\n\u003e nor any change to Bitcoin software, will never be justifiable simply\n\u003e because you and some of your friends think it is totally cool and might\n\u003e make more people like you or give your friends funding.\n\u003e\n\u003e Please stop making noise about CTV, this is not a place for spamming.\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e John Carvalho\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e On Sat, Jun 4, 2022 at 1:00 PM \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev-request at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2022 18:39:34 +0000\n\u003e\u003e From: alicexbt \u003calicexbt at protonmail.com\u003e\n\u003e\u003e To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion\n\u003e\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable\n\u003e\u003e Message-ID:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003cQOWIpROGDv5HHP2GsDiSOsTJ9TVZhFeSP3C03_e2Z3XtOKC_4N5GJtxbdlxuhErvhLZXo1Rn_7SWAQ9XRPwHFuYyArZryTVENefDZuGTAYA=@\n\u003e\u003e protonmail.com\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Note: This email is an opinion and not an attack on bitcoin\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Covenants on bitcoin will eventually be implemented with a soft fork. CTV\n\u003e\u003e is the easiest and best possible way OP_TX looks good as well. Apart from\n\u003e\u003e the technical merits, covenants will improve a few other things:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e - Developers can build interesting projects with real demand in market.\n\u003e\u003e - Students learn Sapio and not just solidity.\n\u003e\u003e - Better tooling could be available for application developers.\n\u003e\u003e - Maybe we see bitcoin developer hackathons in different countries.\n\u003e\u003e - Demand for block space might increase, it wont be just exchanges and\n\u003e\u003e coinjoin.\n\u003e\u003e - Funding of bitcoin developers and projects might improve. Wont need to\n\u003e\u003e convince a few people for grants.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e **Why covenants are not contentious?**\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Some people may write paragraphs about CTV being contentious, spread\n\u003e\u003e misinformation and do all types of drama, politics etc. on social media but\n\u003e\u003e there are zero technical NACKs for CTV. We have discussed other covenant\n\u003e\u003e proposals in detail on mailing list and IRC meetings with an open minded\n\u003e\u003e approach.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e All the developers that participated in the discussion are either okay\n\u003e\u003e with CTV or OP_TX or covenants in general.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e **How and when should covenants be implemented in Bitcoin?**\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I don't think we should wait for years anticipating a proposal that\n\u003e\u003e everyone will agree on or argue for years to pretend changes are hard in\n\u003e\u003e Bitcoin. We should improve the review process for soft fork BIPs and share\n\u003e\u003e honest opinions with agreement, disagreement on technical merits.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I prefer BIP 8 or improved BIP 8 for soft fork but I won't mind anything\n\u003e\u003e else being used if that improves Bitcoin. Covenants implemented in Bitcoin\n\u003e\u003e before the next cycle would provide opportunity for developers to build\n\u003e\u003e interesting things during the bear market. Ossification supporters also\n\u003e\u003e believe there is some window that will close soon, maybe doing changes\n\u003e\u003e considering each case individually will be a better approach. CTV is not a\n\u003e\u003e rushed soft fork, less people followed the research and it was not\n\u003e\u003e mentioned on social media repeatedly by the respected developers like other\n\u003e\u003e soft forks.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e /dev/fd0\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Sent with Proton Mail secure email.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e ------------------------------\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220606/cea5b415/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "c871ea7db18b112ccdce6ab15ce1f204deaf72600a8bb21311b982a9bc508bc91277ae9d89f1b6415a71aeb4434ebcba25380993bb332cd4f45fab131915b406"
}