reply on: TBDXXX Would Require APO BIP 118 OR CTV BIP 119 \ stacker news ~bitcoin

90 sats \ 1 reply \ @lightcoin 13 May 2023 \ on: TBDXXX Would Require APO BIP 118 OR CTV BIP 119 bitcoin

CTV was initially controversial because the developer suggested using speedy trial and pushed with his ego when the community pushed back on the idea. However, the activation method the developers desires is not a prerequisite for its implementation. We very well can soft fork CTV using an activation method that is against the developer's wishes because it is open source code after all.

We should delineate here. There were really two main points in time where CTV was (implicitly) rejected: once when Jeremy tried to get it into Bitcoin Core, and then again when he announced he would publish an alt client with CTV activation parameters implemented.

In the second instance, CTV was rejected not because of speedy trial (Taproot used speedy trial and did not get that same pushback) it was rejected because there were people either mistakenly or intentionally misrepresenting it, and that caused other people to be against its activation by any means.[1][2] In that context, speedy trial was just fuel on the fire and made it a hard no for even more people.

But that activation attempt only came after months of the CTV PR languishing in the Bitcoin Core repo. It was ready to be merged but the maintainers would not merge it. So prior to the outcry by misinformed, non-technically savvy plebs, we have to go back to the root of why was CTV not merged into Bitcoin Core in the first place. Why did Jeremy feel like he had to push for a speedy trial using his own alt client to get CTV activated? I haven't seen a good post mortem on this. I think we need to address whatever was the root cause blocking rough consensus among core devs for merging into Bitcoin Core before we can discuss new activation parameters.

Next time, lets do a deep dive into the technical differences between APO and CTV.

There has been some of this already.[3][4] What questions do you think remain unanswered? And there are still other covenant proposals, any reason for leaving those out?[5]

69 sats \ 0 replies \ @nerd2ninja OP 13 May 2023

There is a vocal percentage of Bitcoiners who are against speedy trial and that ran UASF clients during taproot. But remember, even though the average person didn't know a lot about taproot, they felt as though they were informed.

For most people, CTV came out of nowhere. They hadn't heard or read anything about it (not even a cartoon picture with its name on it like lol) so to those people, some dev was trying to pull a fast one. Andreas Antonopoulos when explaining why it was such a big deal, speculated on some things that it might do (because he hadn't read the BIP yet) and used those examples to say "so those things that we don't know yet are why we need more time to review it". His speculative examples, like that it might be recursive (it isn't) are the examples people use to misrepresent it and that's why I think he's actually the source of those misrepresentations.

So what I'm trying to do now is get the community to the point that it feels educated on the subject matter.

Why didn't I cover other proposals. Well for one I don't know about them lol. I'm focusing on how they apply to channel factories and with as little speculation as I can, tbdxxx and the sources I've linked are what I found on those subjects so far.