📅 Original date posted:2022-04-21
📝 Original message:On 4/20/22 6:04 PM, David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The main criticisms I'm aware of against CTV seem to be along the following lines:
>
> 1. Usage, either:
> a. It won't receive significant real-world usage, or
> b. It will be used but we'll end up using something better later
> 2. An unused CTV will need to be supported forever, creating extra maintenance
> burden, increasing security surface, and making it harder to evaluate later
> consensus change proposals due to their interactions with CTV
>
Also "is this even the way we should be going about covenants?" Given there are still various
proposals for covenants floating around and we're still in the very early stages of the
reconciliation of them and the Bitcoin technical community (or at least those interested in working
on covenants) doesn't even remotely show any signs of consensus around any concrete proposal,
talking about a "way forward for CTV" or activating CTV or coming up with some way of shoving it
into Bitcoin at this stage is insulting, myopic, short-sighted. Worse, it sets incredibly poor
precedent for how we think about changes to Bitcoin and maintaining Bitcoin's culture of security
and careful design.
I'm gobsmacked that the conversation has reached this point, and am even more surprised that the
response from the Bitcoin (technical) community hasn't been a more resounding and complete rejection
of this narrative.
Matt
Matt Corallo [ARCHIVE] /
npub1e4…jxmcu
2023-06-07 23:07:35
in reply to nevent1q…25jx
Author Public Key
npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcuPublished at
2023-06-07 23:07:35Event JSON
{
"id": "1f25f6bd150bf29d84ee63208ad60ccec568db1fb15ae256f6ab4c174fb493cf",
"pubkey": "cd753aa8fbc112e14ffe9fe09d3630f0eff76ca68e376e004b8e77b687adddba",
"created_at": 1686179255,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"3199d7e373413debbd60986222963e0a7995231a8bea9719310656b98185e004",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"fe7795613d423aa4914aa89a1fac08d4e29e22178563eb3302bf5776c5342243",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"372c316761360b4ea20f2d7e81a59363b7e45b8e945a5381c3122049c2c4b84a"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-04-21\n📝 Original message:On 4/20/22 6:04 PM, David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e Hi all,\n\u003e \n\u003e The main criticisms I'm aware of against CTV seem to be along the following lines:\n\u003e \n\u003e 1. Usage, either:\n\u003e a. It won't receive significant real-world usage, or\n\u003e b. It will be used but we'll end up using something better later\n\u003e 2. An unused CTV will need to be supported forever, creating extra maintenance\n\u003e burden, increasing security surface, and making it harder to evaluate later\n\u003e consensus change proposals due to their interactions with CTV\n\u003e\n\nAlso \"is this even the way we should be going about covenants?\" Given there are still various \nproposals for covenants floating around and we're still in the very early stages of the \nreconciliation of them and the Bitcoin technical community (or at least those interested in working \non covenants) doesn't even remotely show any signs of consensus around any concrete proposal,\n\ntalking about a \"way forward for CTV\" or activating CTV or coming up with some way of shoving it \ninto Bitcoin at this stage is insulting, myopic, short-sighted. Worse, it sets incredibly poor \nprecedent for how we think about changes to Bitcoin and maintaining Bitcoin's culture of security \nand careful design.\n\nI'm gobsmacked that the conversation has reached this point, and am even more surprised that the \nresponse from the Bitcoin (technical) community hasn't been a more resounding and complete rejection \nof this narrative.\n\nMatt",
"sig": "f9e52e03bb2f6a4ca44692e313881172cba741cb9c68c7c6741aafc406cd90737b975b80ca864686d0864d9cb779e781cd56a04f2edeaeb2cfd3be47d0815863"
}