rich1.0npub1y22yec0znyzw8qndy5qn5c2wgejkj0k9zsqra7kvrd6cd6896z4qm5taj0https://nostr.ae/npub1y22yec0znyzw8qndy5qn5c2wgejkj0k9zsqra7kvrd6cd6896z4qm5taj0njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2022-06-06 📝 Original message:Maintaining the security of the protocol is squarely the responsibility of the Bitcoin software and the core developers Continued demand for block space is critical for Bitcoin's security. Therefore it *is* the responsibility of Bitcoin software and core developers to maintain a continued demand for block space - which underpins the game-theoretical security of the protocol. While I'm personally confident that demand is still high, enough to reasonably secure the protocol, I do think that this is a matter not best left up to stern opinions. Whether covenant tech is essential for that security or not is a matter for simulations and proofs, not hype and speculation - on either side of the issue. On Sat, Jun 4, 2022 at 8:36 AM John Carvalho via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Core development is not a hackathon project. > > None of the quoted following items are features or responsibilities of the > Bitcoin software, nor Core developers. > > Quoted: > "- Developers can build interesting projects with real demand in market. > - Students learn Sapio and not just solidity. > - Better tooling could be available for application developers. > - Maybe we see bitcoin developer hackathons in different countries. > - Demand for block space might increase, it wont be just exchanges and > coinjoin. > - Funding of bitcoin developers and projects might improve. Wont need to > convince a few people for grants." > > Whether you are a child or an attacker, none of us should care, but CTV, > nor any change to Bitcoin software, will never be justifiable simply > because you and some of your friends think it is totally cool and might > make more people like you or give your friends funding. > > Please stop making noise about CTV, this is not a place for spamming. > > -- > John Carvalho > > > > On Sat, Jun 4, 2022 at 1:00 PM < > bitcoin-dev-request at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> >> Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2022 18:39:34 +0000 >> From: alicexbt <alicexbt at protonmail.com> >> To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion >> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> >> Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin covenants are inevitable >> Message-ID: >> >> <QOWIpROGDv5HHP2GsDiSOsTJ9TVZhFeSP3C03_e2Z3XtOKC_4N5GJtxbdlxuhErvhLZXo1Rn_7SWAQ9XRPwHFuYyArZryTVENefDZuGTAYA=@ >> protonmail.com> >> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 >> >> Note: This email is an opinion and not an attack on bitcoin >> >> Covenants on bitcoin will eventually be implemented with a soft fork. CTV >> is the easiest and best possible way OP_TX looks good as well. Apart from >> the technical merits, covenants will improve a few other things: >> >> - Developers can build interesting projects with real demand in market. >> - Students learn Sapio and not just solidity. >> - Better tooling could be available for application developers. >> - Maybe we see bitcoin developer hackathons in different countries. >> - Demand for block space might increase, it wont be just exchanges and >> coinjoin. >> - Funding of bitcoin developers and projects might improve. Wont need to >> convince a few people for grants. >> >> **Why covenants are not contentious?** >> >> Some people may write paragraphs about CTV being contentious, spread >> misinformation and do all types of drama, politics etc. on social media but >> there are zero technical NACKs for CTV. We have discussed other covenant >> proposals in detail on mailing list and IRC meetings with an open minded >> approach. >> >> All the developers that participated in the discussion are either okay >> with CTV or OP_TX or covenants in general. >> >> **How and when should covenants be implemented in Bitcoin?** >> >> I don't think we should wait for years anticipating a proposal that >> everyone will agree on or argue for years to pretend changes are hard in >> Bitcoin. We should improve the review process for soft fork BIPs and share >> honest opinions with agreement, disagreement on technical merits. >> >> I prefer BIP 8 or improved BIP 8 for soft fork but I won't mind anything >> else being used if that improves Bitcoin. Covenants implemented in Bitcoin >> before the next cycle would provide opportunity for developers to build >> interesting things during the bear market. Ossification supporters also >> believe there is some window that will close soon, maybe doing changes >> considering each case individually will be a better approach. CTV is not a >> rushed soft fork, less people followed the research and it was not >> mentioned on social media repeatedly by the respected developers like other >> soft forks. >> >> /dev/fd0 >> >> >> Sent with Proton Mail secure email. >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220606/cea5b415/attachment.html>