{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1y22yec0znyzw8qndy5qn5c2wgejkj0k9zsqra7kvrd6cd6896z4qm5taj0","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1y22yec0znyzw8qndy5qn5c2wgejkj0k9zsqra7kvrd6cd6896z4qm5taj0","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2022-04-23\n📝 Original message:On Sat, Apr 23, 2022, 5:05 AM Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e @Zac\n\u003e \u003e  More use cases means more blockchain usage which increases the price of\n\u003e a transaction for *everyone*.\n\u003e\n\u003e This is IMO a ridiculous opposition. Anything that increases the utility\n\u003e of the bitcoin network will increase usage of the blockchain and increase\n\u003e the price of a transaction on average. It is absurd to say such a thing is\n\u003e bad for bitcoin. Its like the old saying: \"nobody goes there any more -\n\u003e its too crowded\".\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e I like the maxim of Peter Todd: any change of Bitcoin must benefit *all*\n\u003e users.\n\u003e\n\u003e This is a fair opinion to take on the face of it. However, I completely\n\u003e disagree with it. Why must any change benefit *all* users? Did segwit\n\u003e benefit all users? Did taproot? What if an upgrade benefits 90% of users\n\u003e a LOT and at the same time doesn't negatively affect the other 10%? Is that\n\u003e a bad change? I think you'd find it very difficult to argue it is.\n\u003e\n\u003e Regardless of the above, I think CTV *does *in fact likely provide\n\u003e substantial benefit to all users in the following ways:\n\u003e\n\u003e 1. CTV allows much easier/cheaper ways of improving their security via\n\u003e wallet vaults,\n\u003e\n\n\nMaybe.  But there are enough security caveats that it probably needs other\nopcodes too to be useful.\n\n\nDLCs, channels\n\u003e\n\nAPO (BIP118) handles these with a smaller footprint\n\n\nand many other use cases.\n\u003e\n\nSomeone want to volunteer to make a table of use cases, proposed opcodes\n(CTV, APO)  and a maturity and efficiency rating at each intersection?\n\nHard to juggle all this.\n\nI'm not a fan of the squeaky wheel method of consensus.\n\nI do think most people believe some form of restricted, well-tested\ncovenants that don't allow for recursion should make it into Bitcoin at\nsome point.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220423/5adf57df/attachment.html\u003e"}