> Your knowledge is incorrect. As far as I know in the getting on for 2 years > since the first CTV activation talk/attempt literally no one has built out a > CTV use case and demonstrated it on signet with the possible exception of > James O'Beirne's OP_VAULT which requires other new opcodes in addition to > CTV.
This is not true. https://github.com/AdamISZ/pathcoin-poc /dev/fd0 floppy disk guy Sent with Proton Mail secure email. On Tuesday, January 2nd, 2024 at 1:52 PM, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > In the interests of time I'll just pick two to respond to but I don't agree > with any of your points. > > > Covenants allow trustless utxos sharing and also are needed for vaulting. > > The numerous use cases are documented, built out and on signet to my > > knowledge. Check out utxos.org for a good list > > Your knowledge is incorrect. As far as I know in the getting on for 2 years > since the first CTV activation talk/attempt literally no one has built out a > CTV use case and demonstrated it on signet with the possible exception of > James O'Beirne's OP_VAULT which requires other new opcodes in addition to > CTV. I wish this wasn't the case. It is pitiful that we have these > individuals (such as yourself) that are so convinced CTV should be activated > but refuse to address any concerns raised by others and refuse to work on any > of the speculated use cases, instead choosing to just beat the activation > drum over and over again. > > > 4. "Best tool for the job" is not the bar. "Safe for all" and "useful for > >some" is the bar. Like any opcodes or tech Bitcoin has deployed in the past. > >Changing the bar is not up for discussion. > > If you want to avoid a chain split with an activation attempt (it is possible > you don't care but if you do) you have to address concerns others have with a > particular proposal. Just because Satoshi was able to make whatever changes > he liked in the early days of Bitcoin's history and smaller groups of > contributors then were able to activate changes without much scrutiny > (Bitcoin was worth a fraction of what it is today and was only supporting a > tiny ecosystem back then) doesn't mean we can do the same today. Appointing > Erik as the new Satoshi who can make whatever changes he likes, who defines > the bar with ultimate certainty and decides what is and what isn't up for > discussion also isn't a viable option. > > Thanks > Michael > > -- > Michael Folkson > Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com > GPG: A2CF5D71603C92010659818D2A75D601B23FEE0F > > > Learn about Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/@portofbitcoin > > > On Monday, 1 January 2024 at 17:11, Erik Aronesty <e...@q32.com> wrote: > > > > 1. Claiming that something that isn't activated (unusable) isn't used as a > > non-argument > > 2. Talking about activation methods is orthogonal. Bip8 is fine. > > > > 3. Covenants allow trustless utxos sharing and also are needed for > > vaulting. The numerous use cases are documented, built out and on signet to > > my knowledge. Check out utxos.org for a good list > > > > 3. No need to discuss wild extremes that are unrelated to ctvs well > > documented utility. Plus multi-sig allows governments to encumber (or > > accidentally ruin) destination addresses just like covenants. > > > > 4. "Best tool for the job" is not the bar. "Safe for all" and "useful for > > some" is the bar. Like any opcodes or tech Bitcoin has deployed in the > > past. Changing the bar is not up for discussion. > > > > > > CTV has already been demonstrated "useful for some". The question that > > needs to be answered is whether there are any specific objections to safety. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 1, 2024, 11:37 AM Michael Folkson > > <michaelfolk...@protonmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi Erik > > > > > > > > > > So what exactly are the risks of CTV over multi-sig? > > > > > > > > > It is a strange comparison. Multisig is active onchain and is being used > > > today for all sorts of things including Lightning and setups that address > > > risk of single key loss or malicious signing. When discussing risks of > > > CTV there are all sorts of risks that don't apply to multisig. These > > > include that it is never used for any of its speculated use cases > > > (multisig is being used today), other proposals end up being used instead > > > of it (I'm not sure there were or are competing proposals so that > > > multisig stops being used, MuSig2 maybe?), chain split risks with > > > activation if there isn't consensus to activate it etc. Plus usage of > > > complex (non covenant) scripts that fully utilize Taproot trees is still > > > low today. Going straight to covenants (imposing restrictions on where > > > funds can be sent) and not bothering with imposing all the restrictions > > > you'd like on how funds can be spent in the first place seems to me to be > > > putting the cart before the horse. Covenants don't ultimately solve the > > > key management issue, they just move it from the pre spending phase to > > > the post spending phase. So the benefits (although non-zero) aren't as > > > obvious as some of the covenant advocates are suggesting. And although > > > CTV is a limited covenant (some argue too limited) covenants taken to > > > wild extremes could create all sorts of second order effects where funds > > > can't be spent because of complex combinations of covenants. Even the > > > strongest CTV proponent seems to suggest that the introduction of > > > covenants wouldn't end with CTV. > > > > > > > > > The way to reduce implementation risk for a use case of a particular > > > proposal is to build out that use case and see if CTV is the best tool > > > for the job. Repeatedly trying to activate CTV when there isn't consensus > > > for it to be activated does not reduce that implementation risk in any > > > way, shape or form. > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Michael Folkson > > > Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com > > > GPG: A2CF5D71603C92010659818D2A75D601B23FEE0F > > > > > > > > > Learn about Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/@portofbitcoin > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, 30 December 2023 at 08:59, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev > > > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > So what exactly are the risks of CTV over multi-sig? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
