pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @standardcrypto 15h \ parent \ on: Are we close to consensus for Bitcoin's next upgrade? bitcoin
I find your position plausible and am semi-convinced, but need to review the literature further to definitively convince or unconvince myself.
currently reviewing
https://petertodd.org/2024/covenant-dependent-layer-2-review#on-chain-fee-payment-in-unilateral-withdraw
to better understand the sybil and other risks. particularly around this bit:
"On-Chain Fee Payment In Unilateral Withdraw
Similar to Lightning, the economics of on-chain fee payment and the actual value of a V-UTXO after fees determine whether Ark usage meets our definition of an L2 via unilateral withdrawal, or fraud failing to benefit the ASP. We’ll discuss the specifics of this further when we discuss the txout tree design pattern."
I think its fair to say if someone with Peters grasp on the fundamentals has done a review of L2's, and can't conclude whether something is definitively an L2, then it's not an L2. The ambiguous finding is a hedge for political reasons and/or to get further study funded, which isn't unreasonable.
The biggest issue with the Ark peddlers is the blatant dishonesty in their marketing, this feeds new and unwarranted pushes for forks and scaling FUD. They literally started with attacking Lightning with a 0-day in production, and make bold-faced lies on twitter unrepetently. These are bad people. Had they just called it an application, and didn't lie about the trade-offs, then maybe a constructive conversation about potential use-cases could be had. Until then, their lies cannot go unchecked.
Why did they chose the bad actor path? I think because they know Ark isn't a serious solution in as much as its an angle to grift against the backdrop of underwhelming Lightning adoption.
Reality can be a bitch some times, and the reality is there's no way around the fact that if you can afford unilateral withdrawal then Lightning is the only thing you need. People might like to bitch and complain about complexity and online-ness requirements, but that's a trade-off inherent to anything that adds coordination beyond the base layer... it's true of Ark too.
reply
is there evidence of the 0-day or just suspicion?
as for the communications, I agree it does seem grifty.
reply
You must be new around these parts: https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2022/11/02/rogue-actor-disrupts-lightning-network-with-a-single-transaction
reply
I'm coming around to the notion that as long as the covenant SF is largely pushed by ark (and other suspicious actors), a political coalition is ruled out.
even if there are non-ark reasons for it (channel factories perhaps), the waters are just too muddied.
so we will get a boring consensus cleanup in 2026, and the endless covenant debates will continue potentially well into the 2030s.
YAGNI logic wins; fear mongering that SF will only continue to be possible briefly into the near future before ossification sets in, loses.
reply
Consensus "cleanup" afaik is being pushed primarily by Spiral, a shady and seemingly hostile NGO... It's as much a cleanup as the inflation reduction act reduced inflation.
Can't take anyone seriously about their care for Lightning improvements unless they've been on record for some time in favor of APO, else they're inconsistent.
This is why Bitcoin Core is the biggest risk to Bitcoin, because all it does is attract lobbying), a single repo resting on the reputation of developers past that people now just blindly upgrade from without any thought to changes that are made or not made.
All it does is attract lobbying and so it should be archived so people are forced to research alternative implementations based on merit.
reply