Good morning Chris,
> Hello ZmnSCPxj,
>
> Renting out fidelity bonds is an interesting idea. It might happen in
> the situation where a hodler wants to generate yield but doesn't want
> the hassle of running a full node and yield generator. A big downside of
> it is that the yield generator income
Developers,
A reminder that the regularly scheduled CTV Meeting is tomorrow at 12:00
Pacific Time in ##ctv-bip-review in Libera.
In terms of agenda, we'll keep it as an open forum for discussion guided by
the participants. Feel free to propose meeting topics in the IRC in advance
of the meeting t
Ok, got it. Won't waste anyone's time on terminology pedantism.
The model that I proposed above is simply what *any* correct timestamping
service must do. If OTS does not follow that model, then I suspect whatever
OTS is, is provably incorrect or, in this context, unreliable, even when
servers an
Hello ZmnSCPxj,
Renting out fidelity bonds is an interesting idea. It might happen in
the situation where a hodler wants to generate yield but doesn't want
the hassle of running a full node and yield generator. A big downside of
it is that the yield generator income is random while the rent pa
> If a QC is able overnight to spend a large fraction of the supply, your
coins in your super non-QC vulnerable-bare-CTV-covenant (that would
eventually become vulnerable when trying to use it) are worthless.[1]
I know this has been debated to death, but I really don't think this
argument is ver
Hi Antoine,
Very interesting exploration. I think you're right that there are issues
with the kind of partitioning you're talking about. Lightning works because
all participants sign all offchain states (barring data loss). If a
participant can be excluded from needing to agree to a new state, the
I've been thinking about writing something about covenant proposals from
the viewpoint of wallet vaults specifically (mostly because that's the use
case I care most about).
CTV is basically the minimal covenant opcode you can do that doesn't have
malleability. Everything else either introduces mal
> if you are perfectly rational, you can certainly imagine a "what if"
where your goal is different from your current goal and figure out what you
would do ***if*** that were your goal instead.
I see what you're saying, and I'm a lot more on board with that. I still
think "rational" can't mean "p
Jeremy,
The path to consensus is to propose things that everyone needs. Demand
comes from the market, not the designers.
Designers (engineers) solve problems with designs, but when they speculate
and lead the process, they create problems instead. Bitcoin is not a place
for speculative feature ad
