pull down to refresh

1002 sats \ 2 replies \ @JeremyRubin OP 10 Feb 2022 freebie \ parent \ on: I am Jeremy Rubin, author of BIP-119 CTV & Bitcoin Contributor, AMA bitcoin
  1. Not in particular. Would you call any contract happening in Ethereum (arbitrary powerful system) an abuse? Generally these things are opt-in. Also we already have issues that users can create (e.g. wrt to consensus incentives in Bitcoin) without covenants... not too worried here :)
  2. No comment really, nothing particularly surprising if that makes sense. Your assesment is correct though.
  3. I think in the long run we will never see major ossification. Security in Bitcoin rests on economic demand of on-chain space, so we will constantly have to ensure Bitcoin is serving as the settlement layer of record. That, and at a implementation level, security is an ongoing concern. I think there are bigger risks in implementation stuff v.s. the spec/protocol level, so I don't suspect we gain much from protocol ossification either. IMO even things like PoW are on the table -- my ongoing question is are we getting the best security/censorship resistance for the best price, and I would be surprised if in 50 years we haven't improved on that (imagine computers from 50 years ago and thinking that today's computers would be similar).
write
preview
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 10 Feb 2022
On 2, you seem to have made the most progress of anyone wrt to getting an ambitious proposal in core. I suspect future core devs will be able to learn a lot from you in this regard. That was the motivation behind the question at least.
reply
32 sats \ 0 replies \ @JeremyRubin OP 10 Feb 2022
i hope the lesson is not "this is so hard it's not worth trying again".
that might be my personal takeaway, sadly.
reply