rich1.0npub1f2nxequ09nz44775vv6lkffq2plzqvrqramnk29eddmwcc9z7jys8ms289https://nostr.ae/npub1f2nxequ09nz44775vv6lkffq2plzqvrqramnk29eddmwcc9z7jys8ms289njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2022-06-04 📝 Original message:> 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. 100% But while the OP may have given less than ideal reasons for things like covenants, it does not broadly characterize the reasons for adding them to the Bitcoin protocol. The reasons to do so are: - better self custody solutions that don’t rely on the trust of named third parties - significantly more tractable solutions for things like coin pools - significantly more efficient DLCs These are not “hackathon project” reasons and are the main reasons people advocate for covenants. > None of the quoted following items are features or responsibilities of the Bitcoin software, nor Core developers. Since you seem to have the stone tablets onto which our responsibilities are etched, would you care to enumerate them? > Whether you are a child or an attacker, none of us should care, Are you incapable of actually treating people with respect or do you think that bullying people on this mailing list is the most effective way to get what you want? If it’s the latter I may suggest you go back to Twitter where that works and maybe just leave those comments out of the mailing list if you actually want to convince people of your point of view. Keagan On Sat, Jun 4, 2022 at 7:37 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/20220604/a16a73a5/attachment-0001.html>