📅 Original date posted:2022-02-20
📝 Original message:> note how ETH has quite high on chain fees for basic transactions,
> because there are so many use-cases where the per-tx value can afford much
> higher fees. That kind of expansion of use-case also arguably harms
Bitcoin as
> a whole by providing more fuel for a future contentious blocksize debate.
i second this argument
ideally, all extensions should be explicit use cases, not generic/implicit
layers that can be exploited for unknown and possibly harmful use cases
also timing is critical for all bitcoin innovation. look at how lightning
ate up fees
to keep bitcoin stable, we can't "scale" too quickly either
i'm a fan of, eventually (timing is critical), a lightning-compatible
mimblewible+dandelion on-chain soft fork can reduce tx size, move us from
l2 to l3, vastly improve privacy, and get more small transactions off-chain.
but it probably shouldn't be released for another 2 years
On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 6:41 PM Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 02:57:30AM +0100, Prayank wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > > that current lacks compelling use-cases clearly beneficial to all users
> >
> > All the use cases shared in below links look compelling enough to me and
> we can do anything that a programmer could think of using such restrictions:
> >
> > https://utxos.org/uses/
> >
> > https://rubin.io/archive/
>
> Again, what I said was "compelling use-cases _clearly_ beneficial to _all_
> users", not just a small subset. I neither think the use-cases in those
> links
> are clearly compelling in the current form, and they of course, don't
> benefit
> all users. Indeed, the Drivechains use-case arguably *harms* all users, as
> Drivechains is arguably harmful to the security of Bitcoin as a whole.
> Similarly, the various new uses for on-chain transactions mentioned as a
> use-case arguably harms all existing users by competing for scarce
> blockchain
> space - note how ETH has quite high on chain fees for basic transactions,
> because there are so many use-cases where the per-tx value can afford much
> higher fees. That kind of expansion of use-case also arguably harms
> Bitcoin as
> a whole by providing more fuel for a future contentious blocksize debate.
>
> Bitcoin is an almost $1 trillion dollar system. We have to very carefully
> weigh
> the benefits of making core consensus changes to that system against the
> risks.
> Both for each proposal in isolation, as well as the precedent making that
> change sets.
>
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220220/13f2c635/attachment.html>;
Erik Aronesty [ARCHIVE] /
npub1y2…5taj0
2023-06-07 23:04:39
in reply to nevent1q…vfmr
Author Public Key
npub1y22yec0znyzw8qndy5qn5c2wgejkj0k9zsqra7kvrd6cd6896z4qm5taj0Published at
2023-06-07 23:04:39Event JSON
{
"id": "5310733501fa3c8209a438e3999626c0d0d08818ee18bc633f93c22a20d0a104",
"pubkey": "22944ce1e29904e3826d25013a614e4665693ec514003efacc1b7586e8e5d0aa",
"created_at": 1686179079,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"7182508a59ef85626392280c00988bf4daa1631fd7174d4eea31c49fa1830cb2",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"ed34dfc1ab906ce70262f6516fa70251d1ab151477439af09cdeae9760ce8e01",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-02-20\n📝 Original message:\u003e note how ETH has quite high on chain fees for basic transactions,\n\u003e because there are so many use-cases where the per-tx value can afford much\n\u003e higher fees. That kind of expansion of use-case also arguably harms\nBitcoin as\n\u003e a whole by providing more fuel for a future contentious blocksize debate.\n\ni second this argument\n\nideally, all extensions should be explicit use cases, not generic/implicit\nlayers that can be exploited for unknown and possibly harmful use cases\n\nalso timing is critical for all bitcoin innovation. look at how lightning\nate up fees\n\nto keep bitcoin stable, we can't \"scale\" too quickly either\n\ni'm a fan of, eventually (timing is critical), a lightning-compatible\nmimblewible+dandelion on-chain soft fork can reduce tx size, move us from\nl2 to l3, vastly improve privacy, and get more small transactions off-chain.\n\nbut it probably shouldn't be released for another 2 years\n\n\nOn Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 6:41 PM Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 02:57:30AM +0100, Prayank wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Hi Peter,\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e that current lacks compelling use-cases clearly beneficial to all users\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e All the use cases shared in below links look compelling enough to me and\n\u003e we can do anything that a programmer could think of using such restrictions:\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e https://utxos.org/uses/\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e https://rubin.io/archive/\n\u003e\n\u003e Again, what I said was \"compelling use-cases _clearly_ beneficial to _all_\n\u003e users\", not just a small subset. I neither think the use-cases in those\n\u003e links\n\u003e are clearly compelling in the current form, and they of course, don't\n\u003e benefit\n\u003e all users. Indeed, the Drivechains use-case arguably *harms* all users, as\n\u003e Drivechains is arguably harmful to the security of Bitcoin as a whole.\n\u003e Similarly, the various new uses for on-chain transactions mentioned as a\n\u003e use-case arguably harms all existing users by competing for scarce\n\u003e blockchain\n\u003e space - note how ETH has quite high on chain fees for basic transactions,\n\u003e because there are so many use-cases where the per-tx value can afford much\n\u003e higher fees. That kind of expansion of use-case also arguably harms\n\u003e Bitcoin as\n\u003e a whole by providing more fuel for a future contentious blocksize debate.\n\u003e\n\u003e Bitcoin is an almost $1 trillion dollar system. We have to very carefully\n\u003e weigh\n\u003e the benefits of making core consensus changes to that system against the\n\u003e risks.\n\u003e Both for each proposal in isolation, as well as the precedent making that\n\u003e change sets.\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\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/20220220/13f2c635/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "28c9d71173f69b7e8f84f3e5fe0b6920b0c8966fda31458b477150a5661305bfc7f052789533b0c9d1c2326631efbeabb9dc77ef2e81caafcd8177209b51e4c3"
}