diff options
| author | Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.com> | 2022-04-23 00:07:25 -0500 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2022-04-23 05:07:44 +0000 |
| commit | 827f4327498c6eab407d17344b4618a3895c9d0f (patch) | |
| tree | 159997465e8bc75e4ac1477030a40522d23d5925 | |
| parent | 0ce1cd17010567d4ddaaf937cdaa23e230f62744 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-827f4327498c6eab407d17344b4618a3895c9d0f.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-827f4327498c6eab407d17344b4618a3895c9d0f.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] User Resisted Soft Fork for CTV
| -rw-r--r-- | f2/9f0d36db717fdbd158c9263aabe0d0f86e3966 | 283 |
1 files changed, 283 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/f2/9f0d36db717fdbd158c9263aabe0d0f86e3966 b/f2/9f0d36db717fdbd158c9263aabe0d0f86e3966 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..2c06c10fd --- /dev/null +++ b/f2/9f0d36db717fdbd158c9263aabe0d0f86e3966 @@ -0,0 +1,283 @@ +Return-Path: <fresheneesz@gmail.com> +Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) + by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AC3DC002D + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sat, 23 Apr 2022 05:07:44 +0000 (UTC) +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E87E583F10 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sat, 23 Apr 2022 05:07:43 +0000 (UTC) +X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -2.098 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, + DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, + HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, + SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no +Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); + dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com +Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) + by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) + with ESMTP id 7Unc54oSZY2q + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sat, 23 Apr 2022 05:07:42 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 +Received: from mail-ed1-x52d.google.com (mail-ed1-x52d.google.com + [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52d]) + by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F1B583F05 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sat, 23 Apr 2022 05:07:42 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by mail-ed1-x52d.google.com with SMTP id z99so12669440ede.5 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Fri, 22 Apr 2022 22:07:42 -0700 (PDT) +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; + h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to + :cc; bh=ofFpFT4j61N5ozou8L1gUIOi7B4kHXBBVfVSmIh7MFs=; + b=iRqpUx0ihxSR+ZRep8QDjpe6HOq6kCR8nHOQFvYv+JQvbcwnY450jbxR/unFKXwNow + V2pSPS++tgygtUPNhcskDqqQ0Dydivl33UNhEnfPBe3qGpPZPiLfVAJES3oeX0PkFUv5 + u1I6kZhnu0TE3YSIqJRQEvYlzqFc2BYXlw++KjQXCAIlzct/8JlEaHjVbVnKKQ1w5qPd + S9jOQDOamWpL5eDMrl0se8apTNw8/p8p8XLVm+T8P6MFH6KXx/fPkehyaXvnWDPPdcjz + 2ZCVam7rxXb5FFDHyHfJK/T8zW4SIQHFnvb0Rrh/k/UrjhEU00Di1YYmU5xJyuU9V3RF + +atA== +X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=1e100.net; s=20210112; + h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date + :message-id:subject:to:cc; + bh=ofFpFT4j61N5ozou8L1gUIOi7B4kHXBBVfVSmIh7MFs=; + b=gCqWKK3paNbQmiCg/tHSej/T+4tCTJ3HuKZd82AzrT8A6scomPCpAwL9O+tBeGCN+1 + UDbHsLC6RcVCxPXOUKvio+Eucy9wowwzWC0wl8Uk//UHksx4Cm/BQbVrE9Aw6zj34dOc + 9r3gtLyc7yxNEC1Q5nzOu7XDpFUDxlHEnas0CPwvGKLSRURvfpNf5iNcoIFo046sZJXO + Ik3WwHoJPme//Dz99L3Le2WtRvv8/vMllJ1R3z3T4slJHZjKldFohIMoyOa17+YRWk1H + w39xwlu9w5JJKd71aDM7wLantRVOtQbPghbFL05920IhRecPodXQ9ujPtyxmeWWDxqgv + B9pw== +X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5307n32AwHWnKK1FqeRzyE0mVO06wwXcyXW3i6XmKFUoHl6XKJMC + qlIszwgfMF7lEKVWefDdz6sHT2yX2o9BJv0P5m+3vvBD +X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwIru9t239/sfWUEQWB6qF25YedyPNoNVEfoBOfilRQ6t34OyKTXIORvCrwSI7amyXBp4C0Ega4Be09XGRqSYg= +X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:4499:b0:41d:7e83:8565 with SMTP id + er25-20020a056402449900b0041d7e838565mr8553233edb.332.1650690460393; Fri, 22 + Apr 2022 22:07:40 -0700 (PDT) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +References: <RyYBRY3MJP_0b2YkCEUFBdP8u1A_cGSEEkDbzKK9k-rkINZrBaOL70L96iHR11bJhmkhAzuN6uZ1X8PQgz2wa8Us3-2OpNa4RbhSSprw_WE=@protonmail.com> + <CALeFGL1=4PrA_ziTsoS9sUjGjfLr54AiMfM99uDV-Bau5Ab_eQ@mail.gmail.com> + <CAJ4-pEADrHf_YR5ZBfJW+eefKrp1iEj4wAi72UrwRSi9gaVP+w@mail.gmail.com> + <CAK_HAC8UrPSDoYU-b4KrZqGF3ndWqobPu2y_ddmCvTqNsbifBw@mail.gmail.com> +In-Reply-To: <CAK_HAC8UrPSDoYU-b4KrZqGF3ndWqobPu2y_ddmCvTqNsbifBw@mail.gmail.com> +From: Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.com> +Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2022 00:07:25 -0500 +Message-ID: <CAGpPWDZgZgcK1noNPx7zFh5hs3=jW8ZC4fbCcbf0uXJX2RUw+Q@mail.gmail.com> +To: Corey Haddad <corey3@gmail.com>, + Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000086a58605dd4b521b" +X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 23 Apr 2022 09:04:59 +0000 +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] User Resisted Soft Fork for CTV +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 +Precedence: list +List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2022 05:07:44 -0000 + +--00000000000086a58605dd4b521b +Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" + +@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@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@lists.linuxfoundation.org +>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev +>> +> _______________________________________________ +> bitcoin-dev mailing list +> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev +> + +--00000000000086a58605dd4b521b +Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>@Zac<br></div>>=C2=A0 + +More use cases means more blockchain usage which increases the price of a t= +ransaction for *everyone*.<div><br></div><div>This is IMO a ridiculous oppo= +sition. Anything that increases the utility of the bitcoin network will inc= +rease usage of the blockchain and increase the price of a transaction on av= +erage. It is absurd to say such a thing is bad for bitcoin. Its like the ol= +d saying: "nobody goes there any more - its=C2=A0too crowded".</d= +iv><div><br></div><div>> I like the maxim of Peter Todd: any change of B= +itcoin must benefit *all* users.</div><div><br></div><div>This is a fair op= +inion to take on the=C2=A0face of it. However, I completely disagree with i= +t. Why must any change benefit *all* users? Did segwit benefit=C2=A0all use= +rs? Did taproot? What if an upgrade benefits 90% of users a=C2=A0LOT and at= + the same time doesn't negatively affect the other 10%? Is that a bad c= +hange? I think you'd=C2=A0find it very difficult to argue=C2=A0it is.</= +div><div><br></div><div>Regardless of the above, I think CTV <b>does </b>in= + fact likely provide substantial benefit=C2=A0to all users in the following= + ways:</div><div><br></div><div>1. CTV allows much easier/cheaper ways of i= +mproving their security via wallet vaults, DLCs, channels, and many other u= +se cases. This means both societal benefit that grows the value of the bitc= +oin network and on-chain benefit that reduces the fees people have=C2=A0to = +pay for certain utility, which leads to lower fees for everyone.</div><div>= +<br></div><div>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=C2=A0better than a classic multisig wallet). This could subst= +antially increase the fraction of users that self-custody their bitcoin. Th= +is increased self-custodiation would substantially improve the decentraliza= +tion of bitcoin in terms of holdership which is an important part of bitcoi= +n's resilience, which would be a huge benefit to anyone that holds bitc= +oin or relies on the bitcoin network in any way.=C2=A0<br></div><div><br></= +div><div>Even if a minority (eg 20%) of bitcoin users use CTV, it would hav= +e a substantial positive effect for everyone because of these things.=C2=A0= +</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_= +attr">On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 10:40 AM Corey Haddad via bitcoin-dev <<a = +href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bit= +coin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote clas= +s=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid r= +gb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr">><i>= +A change that increases the number of use cases of Bitcoin affects all user= +s and is *not* non-invasive. More use cases means more blockchain usage whi= +ch increases the price of a transaction for *everyone*.</i><br></div><div><= +br></div><div>This manages to be both incorrect and philosophically opposed= + to what defines success of the project . Neither the number of ways that p= +eople figure out how to innovatively harness Bitcoin's existing capabil= +ities, nor the number or complexity of any optional=C2=A0transaction types = +that the Bitcoin protocol supports have any bearing on transaction fees. De= +mand for blockspace from transactions, which is just plain=C2=A0<i>use</i>= +=C2=A0- and not <i>use cases</i>=C2=A0- is what could drive up transaction = +fees.</div><div><br></div><div>On the philosophical=C2=A0level, as designer= +s 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 o= +f high transaction fees. As an individual thinking only of their next on-ch= +ain 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.= +</div><div><br></div><div>If you were trying to argue that CTV is invasive = +because it may increase transaction demand and therefore cost users more fe= +es, 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 b= +e "invasive".</div><div><br></div><div><i>>I like the maxim of= + Peter Todd: any change of Bitcoin must benefit *all* users.<span>=C2=A0</s= +pan><br></i></div><div><i><span><br></span></i></div><div>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 practi= +cal use of that maxim, we must adopt in our minds a <i>generic</i>, or &quo= +t;model user", and then replicate them so that we may meaningfully und= +erstand a least a proxy for "all users". In reality, there will a= +lways be someone (and at this point, probably a "user" too) =C2= +=A0who 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 bein= +g a 'user'.</div><div><br></div><div>Corey</div><div>=C2=A0<br></di= +v><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"mar= +gin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1= +ex">_______________________________________________<br> +bitcoin-dev mailing list<br> +<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">= +bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br> +<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" = +rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= +man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br> +</blockquote></div></div> +_______________________________________________<br> +bitcoin-dev mailing list<br> +<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">= +bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br> +<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" = +rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= +man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br> +</blockquote></div> + +--00000000000086a58605dd4b521b-- + |