pull down to refresh
100 sats \ 14 replies \ @ek 8 Dec \ on: Bitcoin.org Owner Cobra Warns on Upcoming Bitcoin Soft Fork in 2025 bitcoin
Would you say SegWit which enabled the Lightning Network was unnecessary? And every BIP that would improve lightning?
This sounds like a slippery slope fallacy
How would you compare the universally recognized benefits of SegWit to proposal like BIP119, which is primarily tailored to niche interests and lacks the same consensus on its necessity? Isn’t there a substantive difference between solutions addressing core infrastructural challenges and changes that cater to specific industry stakeholders without a widely acknowledged need?
reply
How would you compare the universally recognized benefits of SegWit
The benefits of SegWit weren’t universally recognized at the time, that’s why BCH exists. Hindsight is 20/20.
to proposal like BIP119, which is primarily tailored to niche interests and lacks the same consensus on its necessity?
It lacks consensus currently, yes, but I don’t think scaling self-custody is a niche interest. Sounds like an oxymoron but I think most people overestimate what could go wrong if we add covenants vs what could go wrong if we don’t. When too much bitcoins is held at custodians it might be too late to undo.
Lightning payments are already mostly done via custodians1 and this problem is slowly creeping up to layer 1.
Isn’t there a substantive difference between solutions addressing core infrastructural challenges
What was the core infrastructural challenge of SegWit? Is it not very similar to why covenants are suggested?
Footnotes
-
see nostr and Primal with their KYC wallet integration ↩
reply
While BCH’s existence may show that not everyone agreed with SegWit, it doesn’t deny the fact that SegWit was indeed addressing root technical issues like transaction malleability, block capacity, that were broadly recognized. BIP119’s aims may sound beneficial, but it’s not clear they’re solving a similarly core problem rather than introducing new complexity, without widespread agreement on its necessity.
reply
SegWit was about scaling bitcoin while preserving self-custody. Covenants are about scaling bitcoin while preserving self-custody.
You need to look at the bigger picture and not get lost in the details.
reply
reply
reply
reply
No one was framing it around Lightning.
After the successful activations of OP_CLTV and OP_CSV, SegWit was the last protocol change needed to make the Lightning Network safe to deploy on the Bitcoin network.
It’s even mentioned in BIP 141 itself:
Unconfirmed transaction dependency chain is a fundamental building block of more sophisticated payment networks, such as duplex micropayment channel and the Lightning Network, which have the potential to greatly improve the scalability and efficiency of the Bitcoin system.
Ok, I get that BIP119 can help secure self-custody in the long run.
But if we go down this route, isn’t there a risk of ending up with a similar split as the block size wars, where some nodes embrace the soft fork while others refuse, potentially leading to another contentious chain split?
reply
There is. I’m arguing for covenants, but I’m not arguing for covenants right now via UASF.
where some nodes embrace the soft fork while others refuse, potentially leading to another contentious chain split?
Not if enough miners agree (MASF like Taproot), only if there is a UASF like SegWit which is probably what you mean.
reply