rich1.0npub1xqcwcttsyk0a64d63crrwsxp88pa42np37rw87hrfn4uku78g2aqltcnnshttps://nostr.ae/npub1xqcwcttsyk0a64d63crrwsxp88pa42np37rw87hrfn4uku78g2aqltcnnsnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2022-04-23 📝 Original message:@Zac > More use cases means more blockchain usage which increases the price of a transaction for *everyone*. This is IMO a ridiculous opposition. Anything that increases the utility of the bitcoin network will increase usage of the blockchain and increase the price of a transaction on average. It is absurd to say such a thing is bad for bitcoin. Its like the old saying: "nobody goes there any more - its too crowded". > I like the maxim of Peter Todd: any change of Bitcoin must benefit *all* users. This is a fair opinion to take on the face of it. However, I completely disagree with it. Why must any change benefit *all* users? Did segwit benefit all users? Did taproot? What if an upgrade benefits 90% of users a LOT and at the same time doesn't negatively affect the other 10%? Is that a bad change? I think you'd find it very difficult to argue it is. Regardless of the above, I think CTV *does *in fact likely provide substantial benefit to all users in the following ways: 1. CTV allows much easier/cheaper ways of improving their security via wallet vaults, DLCs, channels, and many other use cases. This means both societal benefit that grows the value of the bitcoin network and on-chain benefit that reduces the fees people have to pay for certain utility, which leads to lower fees for everyone. 2. Wallet vaults specifically, that CTV would unlock, would make it substantially easier and cheaper to hold funds in a multi key vault (akin to but better than a classic multisig wallet). This could substantially increase the fraction of users that self-custody their bitcoin. This increased self-custodiation would substantially improve the decentralization of bitcoin in terms of holdership which is an important part of bitcoin's resilience, which would be a huge benefit to anyone that holds bitcoin or relies on the bitcoin network in any way. Even if a minority (eg 20%) of bitcoin users use CTV, it would have a substantial positive effect for everyone because of these things. On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 10:40 AM Corey Haddad via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >*A change that increases the number of use cases of Bitcoin affects all > users and is *not* non-invasive. More use cases means more blockchain usage > which increases the price of a transaction for *everyone*.* > > This manages to be both incorrect and philosophically opposed to what > defines success of the project . Neither the number of ways that people > figure out how to innovatively harness Bitcoin's existing capabilities, nor > the number or complexity of any optional transaction types that the Bitcoin > protocol supports have any bearing on transaction fees. Demand for > blockspace from transactions, which is just plain *use* - and not *use > cases* - is what could drive up transaction fees. > > On the philosophical level, as designers of the system, we all hope and > work to make Bitcoin so useful, appealing, and secure that there is massive > demand for blockspace, even in the face of high transaction fees. As an > individual thinking only of their next on-chain transaction, it is > understandable that one might hope for low fees and partially-filled > blocks. Longer term, the health of the system can both be measured by and > itself depends on high transaction demand and fee pressure. > > If you were trying to argue that CTV is invasive because it may increase > transaction demand and therefore cost users more fees, that is 1) an > endorsement of CTV's desirability and 2) reveals that you consider any > increased free-market competition (i.e. more demand) to be "invasive". > > > *>I like the maxim of Peter Todd: any change of Bitcoin must benefit *all* > users. * > > As for Peter Todd's "any change of Bitcoin must benefit *all* users", that > is absolutely a reasonable thing to consider. However, in order to make > practical use of that maxim, we must adopt in our minds a *generic*, or > "model user", and then replicate them so that we may meaningfully > understand a least a proxy for "all users". In reality, there will always > be someone (and at this point, probably a "user" too) who wouldn't benefit > from a change, or at least think they won't. Some users of Bitcoin may even > want Bitcoin to fail, so we cannot afford assume that people have alignment > of goals or vision just by virtue of being a 'user'. > > Corey > > >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > 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/20220423/1bd348d3/attachment.html>