pull down to refresh

What's a good stopping point? Making the case for the capabilities of CTV+CSFSgroups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/-qJc1EWQzY0
1597 sats \ 4 comments \ @k00b 13h bitcoin
We will start by making the case that the capabilities "commit to the transaction spending this output" and "verify a BIP340 signature for an arbitrary message" are a good stopping point for a Bitcoin soft fork.
He explains what these capabilities compose into and covers alternative sets of capabilities provided by other potential forks. This thread is meant to just discuss soft fork capabilities of CTV+CSFS and alternatives - what the capabilities are and why we might want them. Poinsot implies he'll follow up with other discussions for "demonstration of usage" and "design of the operations to achieve these capabilities."
write
preview
related posts
100 sats \ 2 replies \ @Scoresby 12h
One wonders if it is true what some people1 said: the op return fight cleared there air and coalesced people into groups with clear priorities and now it is easier to build consensus for a soft fork.

Footnotes

  1. was it you who said this? I think it was an insightful comment and I'd like to give credit where it is due. ↩
reply
102 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b OP 12h
If you're talking about this, then yeah.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby 12h
Yes, that is it!
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 12h
I thought the first response was interesting
We can consider narrower commitment combinations once we establish that broad commitments are a success for bitcoin. I reject the assumption some have that narrower commitment combinations might have more market demand than broader combinations, and that such assumptions might be an adequate reason to move forward with alternative proposals.
I think I agree that broader commitments will likely have more market demand than narrower commitments, but they also have larger risks. So it's kinda like two sides of the equation, the demand side and the cost/risk side and I think Poinsot is going for a minimalistic risk/cost approach here.
reply