Delivery-date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 02:13:24 -0700
Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2025 05:06:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: fiatjaf <fiatjaf@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Development Mailing List <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>
Message-Id: <a1859d47-59f9-42ea-832a-ae03db33738en@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <mc0q6r14.59407778-1eb1-4e57-bcf2-c781d6f70b01@we.are.superhuman.com>
References: <a86c2737-db79-4f54-9c1d-51beeb765163n@googlegroups.com>
 <035f8b9c-9711-4edb-9d01-bef4a96320e1@roose.io>
 <GLGZ3rEDfqaW8jAfIA6ac78uQzjEdYQaJf3ER9gd4e-wBXsiS2NK0wAj8LWK8VHf7w6Zru3IKbtDU5NM102jD8wMjjw8y7FmiDtQIy9U7Y4=@protonmail.com>
 <mc0q6r14.59407778-1eb1-4e57-bcf2-c781d6f70b01@we.are.superhuman.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] CTV + CSFS: a letter
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; 
	boundary="----=_Part_207940_334775785.1750507619333"
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com

------=_Part_207940_334775785.1750507619333
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_207941_1216264320.1750507619333"

------=_Part_207941_1216264320.1750507619333
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Good morning, I'm nobody and I certainly haven't ever contributed to=20
Bitcoin Core, but I still wanted to say, just because no one mentioned=20
these things, that CTV+CSFS would be great to enable the Spacechains and=20
Statechains constructs.

On the spacechain front I've worked on two proof-of-concepts in the past,=
=20
https://github.com/fiatjaf/simple-ctv-spacechain and=20
https://github.com/nbd-wtf-soma and I know of at least two companies that=
=20
showed interest in deploying decentralized spacechains, one was ZEBEDEE who=
=20
wanted to sponsor a decentralized and open blockchain for asset transfers=
=20
at the time I worked there, the other was Tether who was interested in an=
=20
open blockchain dedicated to USDT. Of course these companies never made any=
=20
real moves (besides ZEBEDEE sponsoring me for working on Soma after the=20
fact) towards implementing any of these things because it was known at the=
=20
time that the soft-forks required at the time (around 2020~2023) were all=
=20
perceived to be "many years away".

Today I learned that Tether has deployed some kind of shit-chain called=20
"usdt0" that isn't the same thing as a spacechain but has some overlap and=
=20
likely wouldn=E2=80=99t exist today if a USDT spacechain had been available=
. There=20
is also a very clear argument that if we had some kind of=20
spacechain-for-assets deployed some years ago the entire utxoset-spam that=
=20
came from the BRC-20 protocol would have not happened -- and arguably we=20
could have perhaps saved at least some of the development efforts that went=
=20
into the less bad alternative asset transfer protocols like Runes, RGB,=20
Tap-ass and whatnot.

On the statechain front I have followed the development of Mercury wallet=
=20
v1 (at some point I launched the "statecoin torch" -- to not say I didn't=
=20
do anything) and later of the Mercury Layer=20
blind-signing-server+client-side-statechain construct, and I still think it=
=20
would have been a great protocol for transfer of Bitcoin value in many=20
circumstances, but the fact that these statechains had a fixed lifespan=20
given by nLockTime (a limitation required by the lack of APO or CTV+CSFS)=
=20
certainly made it much less interesting.

I'm not claiming that if we'd had a covenant-enabling soft-fork available=
=20
some years ago we would have spacechains thriving today and adding to the=
=20
security budget and awareness of Bitcoin without causing any harm or using=
=20
excessive blockspace and that blind statechains would be widely adopted for=
=20
payments or inter-institution settlements, I am just telling some small=20
anecdotes of some possibilities that we may have lost.

I'm also not saying that this soft-fork, if merged today, will cause people=
=20
to work on these things, because probably these ships have already sailed,=
=20
I'm merely highlighting that not doing anything has costs in lost=20
opportunities and invisible risks, and that we don't know what ships=20
haven't sailed yet or what we're losing today by postponing things again.

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/=
a1859d47-59f9-42ea-832a-ae03db33738en%40googlegroups.com.

------=_Part_207941_1216264320.1750507619333
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Good morning, I'm nobody and I certainly haven't ever contributed to Bitcoi=
n Core, but I still wanted to say, just because no one mentioned these thin=
gs, that CTV+CSFS would be great to enable the Spacechains and Statechains =
constructs.<br /><br />On the spacechain front I've worked on two proof-of-=
concepts in the past, https://github.com/fiatjaf/simple-ctv-spacechain and =
https://github.com/nbd-wtf-soma and I know of at least two companies that s=
howed interest in deploying decentralized spacechains, one was ZEBEDEE who =
wanted to sponsor a decentralized and open blockchain for asset transfers a=
t the time I worked there, the other was Tether who was interested in an op=
en blockchain dedicated to USDT. Of course these companies never made any r=
eal moves (besides ZEBEDEE sponsoring me for working on Soma after the fact=
) towards implementing any of these things because it was known at the time=
 that the soft-forks required at the time (around 2020~2023) were all perce=
ived to be "many years away".<br /><br />Today I learned that Tether has de=
ployed some kind of shit-chain called "usdt0" that isn't the same thing as =
a spacechain but has some overlap and likely wouldn=E2=80=99t exist today i=
f a USDT spacechain had been available. There is also a very clear argument=
 that if we had some kind of spacechain-for-assets deployed some years ago =
the entire utxoset-spam that came from the BRC-20 protocol would have not h=
appened -- and arguably we could have perhaps saved at least some of the de=
velopment efforts that went into the less bad alternative asset transfer pr=
otocols like Runes, RGB, Tap-ass and whatnot.<br /><br />On the statechain =
front I have followed the development of Mercury wallet v1 (at some point I=
 launched the "statecoin torch" -- to not say I didn't do anything) and lat=
er of the Mercury Layer blind-signing-server+client-side-statechain constru=
ct, and I still think it would have been a great protocol for transfer of B=
itcoin value in many circumstances, but the fact that these statechains had=
 a fixed lifespan given by nLockTime (a limitation required by the lack of =
APO or CTV+CSFS) certainly made it much less interesting.<br /><br />I'm no=
t claiming that if we'd had a covenant-enabling soft-fork available some ye=
ars ago we would have spacechains thriving today and adding to the security=
 budget and awareness of Bitcoin without causing any harm or using excessiv=
e blockspace and that blind statechains would be widely adopted for payment=
s or inter-institution settlements, I am just telling some small anecdotes =
of some possibilities that we may have lost.<br /><br />I'm also not saying=
 that this soft-fork, if merged today, will cause people to work on these t=
hings, because probably these ships have already sailed, I'm merely highlig=
hting that not doing anything has costs in lost opportunities and invisible=
 risks, and that we don't know what ships haven't sailed yet or what we're =
losing today by postponing things again.<br />

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">bitcoind=
ev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To view this discussion visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/=
bitcoindev/a1859d47-59f9-42ea-832a-ae03db33738en%40googlegroups.com?utm_med=
ium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoind=
ev/a1859d47-59f9-42ea-832a-ae03db33738en%40googlegroups.com</a>.<br />

------=_Part_207941_1216264320.1750507619333--

------=_Part_207940_334775785.1750507619333--