pull down to refresh
33 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 11 Mar \ parent \ on: CTV+CSFS: Can we reach consensus on a first step towards covenants? bitdevs
Which channel do you subscribe to?
I don't think I know enough to say I have an opinion.
The middle channel.
it's not clear what we need to improve UX, covenants aren't the devil, but chain fees are low and lightning might only suck because no one wants to work with existing tools ... and we might want to solve the mining centralization problems we have already.
It's a weird channel to be on. I think both sides have their points but are making them with arguments where they predict a definite future. Pro-covenant people are like "if we don't fork now, bitcoin will never be money, you're just rich, consensus is a ticking time bomb." Anti-covenant people are like "if we enable covenants, bitcoin will get overrun with shitcoins and won't be usable for savings or money and it'll irreversibly harm bitcoin's image."
In general, I'm in favor of attempting a soft fork because I think it's worth keeping the gears greased, but the arguments being made are whack. I think we should be talking about MEV and UX not what bitcoin is or isn't or will be or won't be or blackrock or shitcoins.
reply