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"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] User Resisted Soft Fork for CTV
Precedence: list

--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>&gt;=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: &quot;nobody goes there any more - its=C2=A0too crowded&quot;.</d=
iv><div><br></div><div>&gt; 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&#39;t negatively affect the other 10%? Is that a bad c=
hange? I think you&#39;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&#39;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 &lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bit=
coin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; 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">&gt;<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&#39;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&#39;s desirability and 2) reveals that=
 you consider any increased free-market competition (i.e. more demand) to b=
e &quot;invasive&quot;.</div><div><br></div><div><i>&gt;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=
&#39;s &quot;any change of Bitcoin must benefit *all* users&quot;, 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&quot;, and then replicate them so that we may meaningfully und=
erstand a least a proxy for &quot;all users&quot;. In reality, there will a=
lways be someone (and at this point, probably a &quot;user&quot; too) =C2=
=A0who wouldn&#39;t benefit from a change, or at least think they won&#39;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 &#39;user&#39;.</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--