Lyn Alden On Scaling \ stacker news ~bitcoin

Lyn Alden On Scaling primal.net/e/note10uv7uwynw24f55wy3yf2d70nrgce0g6v99davq5gc54khc2fgstqvfjhuw

1461 sats \ 34 comments \ @siggy47 13 May bitcoin

371 sats \ 11 replies \ @nerd2ninja 13 May

People who are saying "lets not rush things" and "those are just niche programmers" are asleep at the wheel. We need an L1 change to develop L2 any further and we've been discussing CTV for at least a year now (or LNHance which includes two more BIPs) and I anticipate the educational push for it to last maybe 5 years.

We aren't rushing things. If it seems like we're rushing things, its because you're reacting to educational campaigns to bring awareness to node runners and misinterpreting that educational content as a "rush"

110 sats \ 10 replies \ @anon 13 May

People who are saying "lets not rush things" and "those are just niche programmers" are asleep at the wheel. We need an L1 change to develop L2 any further and we've been discussing CTV for at least a year now (or LNHance which includes two more BIPs) and I anticipate the educational push for it to last maybe 5 years.

We aren't rushing things. If it seems like we're rushing things, its because you're reacting to educational campaigns to bring awareness to node runners and misinterpreting that educational content as a "rush"

Nope. Don't touch L1 :

Perpetually KYC’d Coins Using Evil Covenants https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/perpetually-kycd-coins-using-evil-covenants/556

43 sats \ 9 replies \ @nerd2ninja 13 May

This is FUD that I've already dealt with "Perpetually KYC'd coins using Multi-sig" its simpler, cheaper and exists in Bitcoin today.

Not only that, but custodians can just say you own Bitcoin in their account and leave it at that. "No withdrawl policy" We have shown that our resilience against such a policy typically results in the exchange allowing withdraws (no one buys from them if they don't)

In order to even have a CTV address, you need to generate one on your device, the same way you have to generate a taproot address.

This is the kind of FUD the educational push for LNHance will need to deal with for the next 5 years, but I'm strapped in for it because the alternative is to give up and that's not my style.

110 sats \ 4 replies \ @anon 13 May

Also, the author of the article (for the previous link) answers your reply about multisig (please see below).

"There are significant differences.

First, the covenant model requires only a single signature every two weeks. That’s 26 signatures per year. In contrast, the cosigner model requires to co-sign every single transaction, which could be millions per year if there are thousands of institutions.

Second, the covenant model tolerates a slow signing process (e.g., it can take a week and use some threshold scheme) because that doesn’t affect transaction speeds. In contrast, in the cosigner model without a hot key you have to wait for the government to complete their cold signing process before you can transact. The longer the waiting time the higher is your opportunity cost. The shorter the waiting time the more complex and fragile is the air-gapped signing."

110 sats \ 3 replies \ @nerd2ninja 13 May

First, the covenant model requires only a single signature every two weeks. That’s 26 signatures per year. In contrast, the cosigner model requires to co-sign every single transaction, which could be millions per year if there are thousands of institutions.

CISA (cross input signature aggregation). We have it in some form with musig2, but musig2 by itself isn't the full CISA of the future.

As far as the time argument goes, don't you know that our system relies on credit. If you're just waiting on the government sign off, then any business would just credit you until the settlement can go through. Since all your PSBTs would be sent to the government, the risk of a full RBF tx is nil as the government would apply a first seen first signed policy.

Anyway, that's all much more complicated than what governments and businesses are doing today, which is just not letting you withdraw unless you're sending to another whitelisted service.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nerd2ninja 13 May

More CISA nuance https://cisaresearch.org/

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @anon 13 May

Thank you for your reply but that makes no sense to me. I wouldn't want to be in a position of having a payment in a sort of limbo for two weeks. I'll take my chances with the current risks with multisig rather than potentially make it even worse.

As for the system being based on credit : ... not really. If I sell a product, I want to get the btc before and I want to ship now. I won't be waiting around for two weeks. If I sell my house, I want the btc now, and no limbo.

110 sats \ 0 replies \ @nerd2ninja 13 May

Sorry, when I said "our system" I meant the banking system, which you're right is not our system, but a government entity or any modern business would not have an issue with it at all.

Here's something to consider. Why do we have a merkle tree secured by hash cash? One of the reasons is so that there is no transaction reversibility. If a government database (or more likely an exchange or other custodian database) is the transaction state, is the authority on whether a tx gets reversed or not, (their signature is required afterall), and your custodian trusts this other custodian not to sign a second tx made by you (as they all do these days), your custodian (which I say custodian because this is a 2 of 2 multi-sig and you don't have enough signatures to spend and you don't have unilateral exit) could sign the unconfirmed on the utxo to allow you to spend it elsewhere.

Here's this put in more simple terms how I could put it on my own.

https://cryptocurrency360.com/child-pays-parent-cpfp-bitcoin/

"What Is A Child Transaction In The Bitcoin Network? A child transaction can be best understood in relation to its parent transaction. In the Bitcoin network, transactions are linked together in a chain-like structure called a blockchain. When a parent transaction occurs, it creates an unspent output that can be used as an input for subsequent transactions.

These subsequent transactions that spend these unspent outputs are referred to as child transactions."

So, when you receive a tx that is only signed by one signature, your wallet will query the government's node, see the tx in their custom mempool, and it will say its confirmed. Still in the mempool, the wallet will say its confirmed. Its not possible to reverse this tx, because the government mempool won't allow it to be replaced and because it doesn't have the governments signature, its not consensus valid to be mined yet.

(In both a CTV perpetual KYC scheme and this multi-sig perpetual KYC scheme, you'd need a wallet that even complies with this scheme)

In order to even have a CTV address, you need to generate one on your device, the same way you have to generate a taproot address.

You may remember me saying that.

So then your wallet would sign the child transaction of that tx and so and and so forth until the government signer wakes up and signs all of them at once and broadcasts that to be mined.

(p.s. I had to double check with some people I know that you could sign a child transaction of a multi-sig utxo before its parent is fully signed lol)

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @anon 13 May

Looking online, I see Greg Maxwell mentioning that same possible use of multi-sig. How current do you think this quote from Greg Maxwell (2022) still is with the currrent proposals? :

https://btctranscripts.com/greg-maxwell/2022-05-05-covenants-bip119/

"Simultaneously, there are plenty of extremely useful, pro-security, pro-privacy, pro-autonomy ways people could conceivably temporarily encumber their own coins… sadly almost none of them are enabled by bip119."

100 sats \ 2 replies \ @nerd2ninja 13 May

With current proposals? Do you mean the 3 proposals in LNHance?

Yeah its very current. Jeremy (the BIP author) sucks and he did try to push it through without the whole getting node runners to understand what's going on and why its wanted thing. I'd be interested to hear why Greg Maxwell thought it was a poor proposal though. If its because of the BIP author, well can we talk about it without the BIP author? lol.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @anon 14 May

I was rather asking if Greg Maxwell's criticisms are still current? :

"there are plenty of extremely useful, pro-security, pro-privacy, pro-autonomy ways people could conceivably temporarily encumber their own coins… sadly almost none of them are enabled by bip119"

There's no reason to rush anything. Which is apparently still what the proponents of those changes are doing : https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/lnhance-bips-and-implementation/376/2

Michael Folkson : "This should be opened to bitcoin-inquisition rather than this repo at this stage? I thought that was the whole point of bitcoin-inquisition. I can summarize why bitcoin-inquisition was introduced in the first place if that helps. It might seem overly finicky but having all proposed consensus changes (especially if they are new) discussed in the Core repo just adds too much noise to all the work that is being done on non consensus changes in Core (imo). "

and further down, still Michael :

"[...] if everyone takes your approach we get tens of different PRs in the Core repo from different authors all with different combinations of their favorite opcodes and sighash flags and supposedly that helps review and makes progress towards activation. In a repo that already suffers from being unnecessarily noisy. [...]"

I don't like people to push for rushed changes to my only savings plan.

Again, if people just want low fees, they can use any of thousands of shitcoins. We can also just use second layers and even e-cash mints too (which I do).

Bitcoin inflation goes down every four years, so we need high transaction fees if we plan on having a secure bitcoin (hashing power). So having lower fees doesn't feel like either a necessity nor even a good thing, tbh.

More privacy? Now, that will always be good, as long as it doesn't hurt auditability and that the necessitated changes don't increase the attack surface.

Otherwise, I prefer to have everything else on second or third layers.

And if there's going to be any changes, I wouldn't want that to happen while bigly respected bitcoin developers like Greg Maxwell expressing concerns.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nerd2ninja 14 May

I think BIP119 is a poor proposal being pushed through in an ill advised way, but I think the concern you’re raising isn’t a legitimate one.

That's the only concern he raised. The entirety of what you sent me was Maxwell debunking FUD about perpetual KYC via CTV except for this one blurb where he says he doesn't like it and doesn't specify why.

And when asked, his only response was

Sorry, I don't work on Bitcoin anymore. You'll have to ask someone else.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/uim560/comment/i7dhfpb/

There's no reason to rush anything. Which is apparently still what the proponents of those changes are doing : https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/lnhance-bips-and-implementation/376/2

In what conceivable way is this rushing anything? Do you know what inquisition net is? Its a test network to test and build with proposed op_codes. Its has nothing to do with mainline activation. A better example would have been O'Beirne publishing MASF code with no activation date.

So when Maxwell says its being pushed through in an ill advised way perhaps he would be referring to things like that.

You're not talking to O'Beirne or Folkson for that matter though, you're talking to me and I think the educational awareness campaign for node runners to grok what CTV (as part of LNHance) implications and applications are will likely take 5 years. I'm not rushing.

And so then what you're talking about usecases? That's why you bring up fees and privacy and all that right? All of this to finally get to that point eh. Would have loved to start there.

So John Law wrote this paper on scaling lightning using covenants https://github.com/JohnLaw2/ln-scaling-covenants

This method for scaling lightning involves a multi-party channel giving timeout trees to users who are 99% of the time offline. Please read the paper.

This is not about making fees cheaper, this is about dealing with high fees in a sane way.

It should not come as a surprise to you to read me telling you that Bitcoin is also my only savings plan. I'm not rushing anything. I just think its a good BIP.

164 sats \ 4 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 13 May

I'm not in favor of making too many changes to L1. L2 is the way to go.

845 sats \ 3 replies \ @siggy47 OP 13 May

I agree. The discussion is good. Lopp really pushes back. Does anyone know what his specific ideas are? He seems to be a bit of an iconoclast lately.

64 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 13 May

I'm not sure what the specific ideas are. The Loop has been running like this since it "attacked" the testnet.

118 sats \ 0 replies \ @anon 13 May

I agree. The discussion is good. Lopp really pushes back. Does anyone know what his specific ideas are? He seems to be a bit of an iconoclast lately.

He's been a shitcoiner for a while, unfortunately.

He's the CTO fow Casa and they do ETH. https://blog.casa.io/author/jameson-lopp/

He also pushed for Grin (an other shitcoin).

We lost him somewhere along the way.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 13 May

Jameson has always been irreverent but also correct most of the time. Big fan of Jameson!

Don’t understand his response

https://primal.net/e/note19phzxqknvgrqql2dj90rmlkyxxj5dslwpj5755zpcph5t6w0tskskjtug0

65 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coinsreporter 13 May

L2s are a way for sure. But I don't want to make them some money making shit. There are already many solutions and if one of them works out then there's no need to further discuss.

74 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora 13 May

Seems legit. She isnt suggesting anything wrong, just telling everyone to take their time and think things through.

54 sats \ 7 replies \ @jgbtc 13 May

Serious block size war vibes right now.

62 sats \ 6 replies \ @siggy47 OP 13 May

Exactly. I wonder if it could be Ver's book? I doubt many bitcoiners even read it. Backlash to ETFs? I don't know why this shit is coming up again. Makes no sense to me.

54 sats \ 5 replies \ @TomK 13 May

Dejá vú is always a possibility. Really: I can't stand the debate any more. And now Lyn Alden. Wait until the 'specialists' of Blackrock et al will be coming around with their ideas to 'improve' BTC

52 sats \ 4 replies \ @anon 13 May

TomK, this is why they want to mess with the base layer : "Perpetually KYC’d Coins Using Evil Covenants" : https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/perpetually-kycd-coins-using-evil-covenants/556

20 sats \ 3 replies \ @TomK 13 May

Did You see the Tether announcements? I nearly puked. Good points to fight for privacy btc even more. I am in Europe and the last thing I will do is bowing down in front if these commies

42 sats \ 2 replies \ @anon 14 May

Tether announcements

I hadn't see anything so I just looked it up. I presume you mean the partnership with Chainalysis? : https://tether.io/news/tether-enhances-compliance-measures-with-chainalysis-ecosystem-monitoring-solution/

As a btc maxi, I'm almost happy about that, haha They're making their own tool (USDt) less useful. They're destroying any form of competition. It was always going to be this way since, at the end of the day, tether is just a big paypal.

We have to use btc and with all of its privacy tools, as much as we can.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @TomK 15 May

Hey, sorry for the harsh debate. I guess we're fighting on the same team in the end. OK?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @TomK 14 May

Yes, You're absolutely right.

54 sats \ 0 replies \ @BitcoinAbhi 13 May

I am not desperate for any changes to the L1. Keep it simple lightning is doing good. Isn't it a solution already.

54 sats \ 0 replies \ @cristaiji 13 May

I’m really keen to run a node so I can participate in these types of discussions. And I likely wouldn’t support any changes to layer 1 unless I fully understood the intricacies. I prefer layer 2 solutions.

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @nicosey 13 May

Here comes ossification nonsense again. Need a solution for high fee spikes...

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @jgbtc 13 May

When fees are low people freak out about security budget. Fees are fine. Sometimes they'll be higher, sometimes lower. We don't need to change bitcoin every time the fees don't conform to someone's expectations.

1110 sats \ 1 reply \ @freetx 13 May

Wouldn't it be ironic if BTC added OPCODEs to help implement scaling solutions, but instead shitcoiners / ordinal makers just had a entirely new set of tools to play with so blockspace was 10x as clogged with new NFTs and scams?

Everything has tradeoffs and there is no magic bullet.

I prefer to keep the devil we know and figure out ways to create solutions without needed any additional changes.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 13 May

Agree 💯

The emphasis on self custody scaling has gotten out of hand and is guilty of perfection is the enemy of good enough

Make changes slowly with a super majority and backwards compatibility

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @anon 13 May

Miners get money from : newly minted bitcoins + from transaction fees. There will be less and less minted bitcoins. Transaction fees will be going up over the long term. That's a given. Second layers were always going to be necessary for smaller payments.

If you want almost no transaction fees, there are a bunch of shitcoins available right now. No need to wait!!

Bitcoin is about a hard first layer for savings and final settlement. Everything else is about second layers (and +). Otherwise, changes risk destroying the project, or worse, enabling government control.