> First is that CTV is relatively way more mature. Been around for a while and hasn't changed much since. So it can be adopted fast. TXHASH still has quite some room for bike-shedding.
This seems like a pretty bad reason to decide on a specific soft fork that we’re committing to for decades, at least when the second option isn’t like crazy complicated and would require a five years of work to “finish”.
> While TXHASH is way more flexible it's also an order of magnitude more complex, mostly code-wise. Needs quite some caching etc, so the code is far from trivial.
Honestly this doesn’t seem that complex? Some tx hash caching already exists so adding a few more cache entries seems…. Incredibly doable?
Honestly these seem like incredibly weak reasons (not saying they’re not the reason, just that if they are, we should choose a different path).
matt / Matt Corallo
npub185…swrdp
2025-04-23 03:29:35
in reply to nevent1q…0j93
Author Public Key
npub185h9z5yxn8uc7retm0n6gkm88358lejzparxms5kmy9epr236k2qcswrdpPublished at
2025-04-23 03:29:35Event JSON
{
"id": "c8dded7f9d8768fc545c84ba8c012fdf6d36fd58d3aae1c855d3cd4394c8862a",
"pubkey": "3d2e51508699f98f0f2bdbe7a45b673c687fe6420f466dc296d90b908d51d594",
"created_at": 1745378975,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"76dbd0f5154353e991c6e7da068d25c385a2807f7d4576ad2eded9941e956d89",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"744bc19166780b059e04bfb1eb3d3b5839f679aa28b42e85a6004261f6597bd4",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"a9e42a0ca6e4b1208088b68a4fd6407481b12060f915a0fecb4c8874557e3749"
]
],
"content": "\u003e First is that CTV is relatively way more mature. Been around for a while and hasn't changed much since. So it can be adopted fast. TXHASH still has quite some room for bike-shedding.\n\nThis seems like a pretty bad reason to decide on a specific soft fork that we’re committing to for decades, at least when the second option isn’t like crazy complicated and would require a five years of work to “finish”.\n\n\u003e While TXHASH is way more flexible it's also an order of magnitude more complex, mostly code-wise. Needs quite some caching etc, so the code is far from trivial.\n\nHonestly this doesn’t seem that complex? Some tx hash caching already exists so adding a few more cache entries seems…. Incredibly doable?\n\nHonestly these seem like incredibly weak reasons (not saying they’re not the reason, just that if they are, we should choose a different path).",
"sig": "4c56cdb8b44eb6f28292bc1c3cc81fa270e2943df3eddbad18e78b17f76abe0f758f6b6163709cb1aeda8c8ce1834caa206e1855fbeb17c7498ed27ad3880a03"
}