pull down to refresh
100 sats \ 2 replies \ @nerd2ninja 13 May \ parent \ on: Lyn Alden On Scaling bitcoin
With current proposals? Do you mean the 3 proposals in LNHance?
Yeah its very current. Jeremy (the BIP author) sucks and he did try to push it through without the whole getting node runners to understand what's going on and why its wanted thing. I'd be interested to hear why Greg Maxwell thought it was a poor proposal though. If its because of the BIP author, well can we talk about it without the BIP author? lol.
I was rather asking if Greg Maxwell's criticisms are still current? :
"there are plenty of extremely useful, pro-security, pro-privacy, pro-autonomy ways people could conceivably temporarily encumber their own coins… sadly almost none of them are enabled by bip119"
There's no reason to rush anything. Which is apparently still what the proponents of those changes are doing : https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/lnhance-bips-and-implementation/376/2
Michael Folkson : "This should be opened to bitcoin-inquisition rather than this repo at this stage? I thought that was the whole point of bitcoin-inquisition. I can summarize why bitcoin-inquisition was introduced in the first place if that helps. It might seem overly finicky but having all proposed consensus changes (especially if they are new) discussed in the Core repo just adds too much noise to all the work that is being done on non consensus changes in Core (imo). "
and further down, still Michael :
"[...] if everyone takes your approach we get tens of different PRs in the Core repo from different authors all with different combinations of their favorite opcodes and sighash flags and supposedly that helps review and makes progress towards activation. In a repo that already suffers from being unnecessarily noisy. [...]"
I don't like people to push for rushed changes to my only savings plan.
Again, if people just want low fees, they can use any of thousands of shitcoins. We can also just use second layers and even e-cash mints too (which I do).
Bitcoin inflation goes down every four years, so we need high transaction fees if we plan on having a secure bitcoin (hashing power). So having lower fees doesn't feel like either a necessity nor even a good thing, tbh.
More privacy? Now, that will always be good, as long as it doesn't hurt auditability and that the necessitated changes don't increase the attack surface.
Otherwise, I prefer to have everything else on second or third layers.
And if there's going to be any changes, I wouldn't want that to happen while bigly respected bitcoin developers like Greg Maxwell expressing concerns.
reply
I think BIP119 is a poor proposal being pushed through in an ill advised way, but I think the concern you’re raising isn’t a legitimate one.
That's the only concern he raised. The entirety of what you sent me was Maxwell debunking FUD about perpetual KYC via CTV except for this one blurb where he says he doesn't like it and doesn't specify why.
And when asked, his only response was
Sorry, I don't work on Bitcoin anymore. You'll have to ask someone else.
There's no reason to rush anything. Which is apparently still what the proponents of those changes are doing : https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/lnhance-bips-and-implementation/376/2
In what conceivable way is this rushing anything? Do you know what inquisition net is? Its a test network to test and build with proposed op_codes. Its has nothing to do with mainline activation. A better example would have been O'Beirne publishing MASF code with no activation date.
So when Maxwell says its being pushed through in an ill advised way perhaps he would be referring to things like that.
You're not talking to O'Beirne or Folkson for that matter though, you're talking to me and I think the educational awareness campaign for node runners to grok what CTV (as part of LNHance) implications and applications are will likely take 5 years. I'm not rushing.
And so then what you're talking about usecases? That's why you bring up fees and privacy and all that right? All of this to finally get to that point eh. Would have loved to start there.
So John Law wrote this paper on scaling lightning using covenants https://github.com/JohnLaw2/ln-scaling-covenants
This method for scaling lightning involves a multi-party channel giving timeout trees to users who are 99% of the time offline. Please read the paper.
This is not about making fees cheaper, this is about dealing with high fees in a sane way.
It should not come as a surprise to you to read me telling you that Bitcoin is also my only savings plan. I'm not rushing anything. I just think its a good BIP.
reply