1975 sats \ 17 replies \ @BitcoinErrorLog 27 Feb \ on: AJ Towns censoring on Delving Bitcoin to cover Bitcoin Core backdoors ? bitcoin
To the contrary. Users are asking for better LN experiences that handle force closers better and ease channel open tx fees and liquidity management issues.
TX batching works well for the channel open tx issues, covenants via timeout trees as detailed by John Law can help with both onboarding with the initial channel open and a graceful exit, and eltoo (which can be enabled with APO or CTV + CSFS both methods being covenant enabling) help to smooth out the force closure issues which in turn helps to build out multi-party channels which help with liquidity management issues.
Now that's all to say nothing about delving bitcoin. Is it a mechanism to subvert the perception of consensus proposals? That I'm merely reading this thread and observing to find out. It's outside the scope of my criticism of your post which is simply a laser focus on the idea that users aren't asking for covenants.
reply
Sibling eviction breaks current LN stuff from my technical analysis.
Thats’s the thing mempool policy have become so much complex so unless you have cross-layer expertise, it’s become very hard to give a fully fledged out analysis of technical correctness and trade-offs.
reply
"users" don't understand how lightning works at all, so they certainly aren't asking for particularl technical changes to address what they are asking for.
reply
Yes, you're right and not only that, they're scared of changes right now, which is why patience (likely years of it) and presentation of facts is important. They are however complaining about the things I mentioned. I only say that covenants are one way of doing it and wouldn't be so closed minded as to say its the only way. If you have other ways of doing it (that don't compromise rehypothecation risk, theft risk, or censorship risk to unreasonable degrees), I'd want to read on it.
reply
covenant is probably a good thing on the long-term.
however getting covenants are hard to get right.
saying this as someone who spent a lot of time doing reviews on covenants over the past years.
reply
Users = node runners in @nerd2ninja's case I believe.
reply
Even then he's still right. Lots of node runners don't understand the particulars of technical changes.
reply
I appreciate the clarification. This whole thread demands further attention and consideration to who are stakeholders in bitcoin, and the relationship all different levels of the ecosytem interact with each other.
Things seem to be getting extremely contentious.
reply
I agree. You seem to be making the same point as Peter in the Shinobi episode of WBD, so you might want to listen to it if you haven't already.
reply
Thanks for the link to WBD...That led me to another twist in the rabbit hole. Now reading BIP-119.
reply
Me, I’m answering questions towards the plebs.
In my opinion, if someone should clarify its relationships with other stakeholders in the ecosystem, it should be this guy (morcos@chaincode.com). While I think a lot of people appreciate what he’s doing with the BDFL, given the secrecy which is surrounding legal matters by design, it could be fruitful to have ethical guarantees such as “we’ll never defund or threat to defund a developer defendant lawsuit solely because you’re raising concerns about how we contribute to Bitcoin Core”.
AJ Towns himself makes that “don’t bite the hands that feeds you” concern years ago on his blog platform.
Due to familiarity with all-kind-of-things-law matters, I’m far more chill than a lot of developers in matters of being threats by lawsuits including by billion-powered entities, including defending myself on my own means only if I have to.
That said, this is not the case of a lot of other devs, I think.
Alex is a single-digit billionaire so he can be busy to answer you. From my experience he’s always done to discuss, if you ask nicely.
reply
reply
This has become a rare thing to see someone write these days, but noted.
reply
reply
Back then I was reading people saying there was no need to use LN because the on-chain fees were too low to make them care enough to try it. I knew things would go in the other direction back then, even if the particulars for why are different each time.
reply
deleted by author
reply