{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1xqcwcttsyk0a64d63crrwsxp88pa42np37rw87hrfn4uku78g2aqltcnns","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1xqcwcttsyk0a64d63crrwsxp88pa42np37rw87hrfn4uku78g2aqltcnns","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2022-04-23\n📝 Original message:@Zac\n\u003e  More use cases means more blockchain usage which increases the price of\na transaction for *everyone*.\n\nThis is IMO a ridiculous opposition. Anything that increases the utility of\nthe bitcoin network will increase usage of the blockchain and increase the\nprice of a transaction on average. It is absurd to say such a thing is bad\nfor bitcoin. Its like the old saying: \"nobody goes there any more - its too\ncrowded\".\n\n\u003e I like the maxim of Peter Todd: any change of Bitcoin must benefit *all*\nusers.\n\nThis is a fair opinion to take on the face of it. However, I completely\ndisagree with it. Why must any change benefit *all* users? Did segwit\nbenefit all users? Did taproot? What if an upgrade benefits 90% of users\na LOT and at the same time doesn't negatively affect the other 10%? Is that\na bad change? I think you'd find it very difficult to argue it is.\n\nRegardless of the above, I think CTV *does *in fact likely provide\nsubstantial benefit to all users in the following ways:\n\n1. CTV allows much easier/cheaper ways of improving their security via\nwallet vaults, DLCs, channels, and many other use cases. This means both\nsocietal benefit that grows the value of the bitcoin network and on-chain\nbenefit that reduces the fees people have to pay for certain utility, which\nleads to lower fees for everyone.\n\n2. Wallet vaults specifically, that CTV would unlock, would make it\nsubstantially easier and cheaper to hold funds in a multi key vault (akin\nto but better than a classic multisig wallet). This could substantially\nincrease the fraction of users that self-custody their bitcoin. This\nincreased self-custodiation would substantially improve the\ndecentralization of bitcoin in terms of holdership which is an important\npart of bitcoin's resilience, which would be a huge benefit to anyone that\nholds bitcoin or relies on the bitcoin network in any way.\n\nEven if a minority (eg 20%) of bitcoin users use CTV, it would have a\nsubstantial positive effect for everyone because of these things.\n\nOn Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 10:40 AM Corey Haddad via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e \u003e*A change that increases the number of use cases of Bitcoin affects all\n\u003e users and is *not* non-invasive. More use cases means more blockchain usage\n\u003e which increases the price of a transaction for *everyone*.*\n\u003e\n\u003e This manages to be both incorrect and philosophically opposed to what\n\u003e defines success of the project . Neither the number of ways that people\n\u003e figure out how to innovatively harness Bitcoin's existing capabilities, nor\n\u003e the number or complexity of any optional transaction types that the Bitcoin\n\u003e protocol supports have any bearing on transaction fees. Demand for\n\u003e blockspace from transactions, which is just plain *use* - and not *use\n\u003e cases* - is what could drive up transaction fees.\n\u003e\n\u003e On the philosophical level, as designers of the system, we all hope and\n\u003e work to make Bitcoin so useful, appealing, and secure that there is massive\n\u003e demand for blockspace, even in the face of high transaction fees. As an\n\u003e individual thinking only of their next on-chain transaction, it is\n\u003e understandable that one might hope for low fees and partially-filled\n\u003e blocks. Longer term, the health of the system can both be measured by and\n\u003e itself depends on high transaction demand and fee pressure.\n\u003e\n\u003e If you were trying to argue that CTV is invasive because it may increase\n\u003e transaction demand and therefore cost users more fees, that is 1) an\n\u003e endorsement of CTV's desirability and 2) reveals that you consider any\n\u003e increased free-market competition (i.e. more demand) to be \"invasive\".\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e *\u003eI like the maxim of Peter Todd: any change of Bitcoin must benefit *all*\n\u003e users. *\n\u003e\n\u003e As for Peter Todd's \"any change of Bitcoin must benefit *all* users\", that\n\u003e is absolutely a reasonable thing to consider. However, in order to make\n\u003e practical use of that maxim, we must adopt in our minds a *generic*, or\n\u003e \"model user\", and then replicate them so that we may meaningfully\n\u003e understand a least a proxy for \"all users\". In reality, there will always\n\u003e be someone (and at this point, probably a \"user\" too)  who wouldn't benefit\n\u003e from a change, or at least think they won't. Some users of Bitcoin may even\n\u003e want Bitcoin to fail, so we cannot afford assume that people have alignment\n\u003e of goals or vision just by virtue of being a 'user'.\n\u003e\n\u003e Corey\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220423/1bd348d3/attachment.html\u003e"}