What's your take on OP_CTV? (ST = Speedy Trial)
1305 sats \ 24 comments \ @TheBTCManual 25 Apr 2022 bitcoin
What's everyone's take on this push for CTV? Seems a bit over-eager in my opinion? Why can't they just run it on a side chain like Liquid that no one using lol and see how it works there?
If we were to focus on a new BIP you think should be lined up or let's say your top 5 BIPs, what would they be in what order, and would CTV make it into your top 5
Is now really the time for another soft fork when we have not fully embraced what taproot has to offer?
Let's discuss, I am all ears!
write
preview
related posts
62 sats \ 1 reply \ @nout 25 Apr 2022
I don't have enough of knowledge to have opinion on OP_CTV.
But the one thing I would like to see is people do much better in the arguments. I like the one process recently also suggested by Jordan Peterson where if you want to argue against someone, you first have to restate their argument in a way that they will be happy with, i.e. it matches what they are trying to say. If and only if they are happy with your "restatement", then you can continue and provide your argument against.
reply
82 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 25 Apr 2022
The word I like for this is steel manning, ie the opposite of straw manning.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @cozy 26 Apr 2022
There's no way to please all the overlapping groups of Bitcoin users (miners, node runners like ln relay hubs, regular joes, devs, etc). To be contrarian to myself (also not a huge fan of ST like @k00b), this does seem to address some real problems with a UASF (giving miners time to get up to speed with consensus changes across tens of thousands of miners).
reply
10 sats \ 3 replies \ @Majjin 25 Apr 2022
I support CTV however I am a little apprehensive about pushing the soft fork right now. Mainly I'm concerned about the vulnerability to CTV users if only a portion of the network adopts the soft fork. Does anyone have any insight into this?
@JeremyRubin
reply
11 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 25 Apr 2022
If most of the miners adopt the soft fork, then it should be perfectly safe to use. The same goes for any soft fork unless I'm missing something.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @TheBTCManual OP 26 Apr 2022
Wouldn't it be like other soft forks, that that feature can be ignored by nodes that don't run the updated software and is only supported by a certain amount of miners and nodes.
I mean how many normies are actually going to be using CTV regularly, i would assume its only a fraction of transactions
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Majjin 26 Apr 2022
That's true, Segwit took forever to get adopted by large portion of the network right? That seemed to have turned out okay. I doubt 100% of the network has upgraded their nodes to Taproot yet.
reply
16 sats \ 6 replies \ @DarthCoin 25 Apr 2022
Normies are so easily manipulated and imediately jump into " I support the current thing" without knowing shit about what they are "supporting".
So asking everybody "what is your take on x thing" is kinda meaningless. Many people with no fucking idea will give their "opinion" like will be "experts" but in fact they know shit.
We should let those with more knowledge about this to talk and debate first, BEFORE jumping in any boat/gang/conclusions.
reply
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @TheBTCManual OP 26 Apr 2022
Wouldn't that exclude 99% of us then? Bitcoin is no longer a niche interest, there are all types of people with net worth in the system. I don't believe dev's have supreme foresight and can consider all ramifications of change, which is why a wider community opinion to me is important
Yes many people aren't interested in doing the work and outsource their opinion to a "trusted source"
Also if we just say its a dev thing the rest need to keep quite, you open up situations where you could have 1 developer or a few that are compromised and becomes an attack vector
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @DarthCoin 26 Apr 2022
When Jeremy was making that AMA I didn't see you asking him more details...
reply
1 sat \ 3 replies \ @felix 26 Apr 2022
Aaand how does him not asking this discard his point?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheBTCManual OP 26 Apr 2022
lol probably just to make me shut up :P
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 26 Apr 2022
Many opponents of Jeremy proposal says that it wasn't discussed enough. But when Jeremy was proposing this for almost a year now, nobody paid attention to it.
I find this behavior weird and now he's attacked by many saying that he wants to "destroy" bitcoin. This is just stupid.
I am not pro or contra for this proposal. I do not have enough tech expertise to say my opinion on this.
But I do not like when people with no fucking idea what is about, start building gangs pro or contra and not even let Jeremy to talk or even worse, just ignore him when he talks, then saying that wasn't debate about his proposal. This is just stupid.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheBTCManual OP 26 Apr 2022
I don't think he's here to destroy bitcoin, I am sure his frustrated that his proposal has been hanging around for a year or more now.
If the bitcoin core peeps aren't keen on it, can he not have it put in another implementation, hence I mentioned adding it to liquid, get it going there, have some field experience is better than nothing no?
reply
20 sats \ 2 replies \ @glix 25 Apr 2022
saw Andreas' new video and in that he brought up a point that I found very intriguing and got me to think in a new way. His idea is that "if there is a way to censor something then it should be censored according to the regulators". This was in context to covenants. If there is a way to whitelist or backlist to which addresses funds can be sent to i.e constricting the utxo to only allow (or disallow) certain addresses, then there will be regulatory pressure to do so. Right now we can say there is no way to whitelist addresses, but if there is, then it becomes a target for the regulators. Although, this is a very subtle point but worth considering. I personally thing that it's not really a big deal to allow such covenants. But having recursive covenants there is still space for things to go wrong. I believe more testing needs to be done before we get this out. Again Jeremy has been waiting a year, and he seems to be running out of patience, but hey you can wait another year or two, have a long time horizon, get more people onboard the idea and spread awareness - which I know are very hard to do. But maybe by taking this controversial decision of SpeedyTrial, he sort of got people talking. Is this is his secret marketing trick ;)?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheBTCManual OP 26 Apr 2022
Can you drop the link to the vid? Would like to check it out and keep the thread hot lol
So who would be doing the whitelisting exchanges? I don't see that as too much of death punch, it might be an issue with fungibility until we have more privacy like coinswap or stealth addresses but wouldn't that also impact their business
If you can only deal in white listed coins/addresses, your market shrinks while the exchanges that don't will service them, it might also help push for more P2P and DEX solutions, which I don't see as a bad thing.
I'd personally love to see more liquidity on P2P markets competing for orders, so I don't have to pay over the price, but that's just me being selfish
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 25 Apr 2022
if there is a way to censor something then it should be censored according to the regulators
He also have an old video where he says: "...what is wrong with the government..."
In the same context: people should be worried about their OWN OBEDIENCE to a gov, not about what a gov will do. STOP BEING AN OBEDIENT SHEEP and put the gov where it belong: to serve YOU as you wish.
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 25 Apr 2022
Short answer: I like CTV, don't like Speedy Trial, and it feels 6-12 months too early for an upgrade this powerful. I suspect Jeremy knows this isn't the right time and is just trying to force people to take the time to learn about CTV. I also have some concerns around the downstream effects of covenants, e.g. wallet support. I'm a bit concerned it will be harder to build wallets that are CTV aware so we'll see fewer wallets competing. There are likely other externalities and that's why I'd like to let CTV marinate a bit longer; it's also why its kind of great Jeremy is pushing the issue now - it felt like it hadn't even started marinating until now.
That said, I still haven't done a deep dive of CTV (deep enough to consider tradeoffs) and I don't feel like I have great intuition when in comes to base layer txs. I vaguely understand CTV and Sapio after reading the BIP and seeing all the Sapio presentations. I think its awesome how powerful it has the potential to be while being so simple, but that power is kind of scary tbh.
I personally feel more comfortable with APO being the next upgrade, perhaps partly biased by me having studied it earlier and hating the penalty mechanism in Lightning.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @0260378aef 26 Apr 2022
I'm a bit concerned it will be harder to build wallets that are CTV aware so we'll see fewer wallets competing.
Depends what you mean of course, but it's important for people to understand that your own wallet not being aware of something like CTV does not stop you from paying people using a destination address of theirs which has CTV embedded.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @felix 26 Apr 2022
Speedy Trial is bad IMO.
While it does work, it's solely miner-led.
Bitcoin changes should be decided on the node level, not by miners.
Though, it should be easier to signal with nodes. I think it'd help a lot if we had ways to signal our stance on certain topics, while not yet making a final decision. This would also incentivize people to run a personal node.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @phaedrus 26 Apr 2022
I need to learn more about CTV. What are the best materials to understand the implementation and more importantly potential impact?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheBTCManual OP 26 Apr 2022
We created a summary here
https://thebitcoinmanual.com/articles/check-template-verify/
And here's a pod with the dev and marty going through it
https://fountain.fm/episode/cd3484cdd1e14c7bac9b06f1e8d8b1bc
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @cryptocoin 25 Apr 2022
Here is a related article, but it is the activation method for than CTV that is the issue:
OP_CTV - Summer Softfork Shenanigans | BitMEX Blog #22113 https://blog.bitmex.com/op_ctv-summer-softfork-shenaniganshe
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @cryptocoin 25 Apr 2022
And here's some discussion on OP_CTV, here on SN, from yesterday:
Is OP_CTV opening up new potential attack vectors on bitcoins censorship resistance? #22486
reply