pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @pakovm 24 Mar \ on: "Lightning self custody works for 100 million users" "But it needs 10 billion!!" bitcoin
The biggest problem with Peter Todds approach is that he believes in the "If people would just", and no, people won't just.
On the soft-fork thing, you are conflating various things, none of those soft-fork proposal will give us shitcoins on Bitcoin, at max they will be able to prove off-chain shitcoining on Bitcoin, but BitVM is in development, which will also allow for softfork or not, simply more blockspace inefficient than adding the right primitives to Bitcoin Script, so I don't really why people fear this, we all know that shitcoins have no value and even if they come to Bitcoin in a way that's not the already existing one, they will all be worth zero and the worst they will be able to do is take up some blockspace, which they do already.
CTV+CSFS will allow not only Lightning to scale due to Symmetry channels and Ark to become trustless, but also will allow for simple vaults which will reduce the risks of self-custody. Furthermore, there's not a single soft-fork proposal (that's being taken seriously) that changes the security model of Bitcoin, also they are all way less complex are already more scrutinized than Segwit or Taproot ever were.
I've been researching and discussing this a lot recently. I think the main fear is from recursive covenant op code proposals like OP_CAT.
The argument against non-recursive covenants like CTV & CSFS seems to be more centered on whether this is actually even necessary right now given low network demand.
reply
That's been the discussion so far, the thing, if I'm not mistaken (BIG IF as I'm no coder) is that recursive covenants are only recursive within themselves, so the worst that can happen is that they eat up the memory of a node trying to validate the whole TX because of the recursive execution of the script, but there's been a lot of FUD around recursive covenants being able to propagate themselves as if Bitcoin was an account model chain and not an UTXO model where only the receiver writes the spending conditions.
When it comes to CTV+CSFS lack of demand's argument, I believe Steven Roose makes the best counter-argument:
In fact, BitVM is a good example of the result of the lack of expressiveness in bitcoin’s protocol. It is essentially a bad version MATT, but built as a workaround around the lack of covenants in bitcoin. To me this shows that there is great demand for this expressiveness and developers are going to extreme lengths to obtain equivalent behavior in the ugliest possible ways.
reply