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 _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
