On Tue, Jan 2, 2024, 8:52 AM Michael Folkson <michaelfolk...@protonmail.com> wrote:
> In the interests of time I'll just pick two to respond to but I don't > agree with any of your points. > > > Covenants allow trustless utxos sharing and also are needed for > vaulting. The numerous use cases are documented, built out and on signet to > my knowledge. Check out utxos.org for a good list > > Your knowledge is incorrect. As far as I know in the getting on for 2 > years since the first CTV activation talk/attempt literally no one has > built out a CTV use case and demonstrated it on signet with the possible > exception of James O'Beirne's OP_VAULT which requires other new opcodes in > addition to CTV. > Nice example, thanks. > > > 4. "Best tool for the job" is not the bar. "Safe for all" and "useful > for some" is the bar. > This is the bar, ant CTV has passed it with vaulting alone. If you want to avoid a chain split with an activation attempt (it is > possible you don't care but if you do) you have to address concerns others > have with a particular proposal. > You haven't mentioned one safety concern. It's hard to tell if you have any. There is, of course, the elephant in the room with CTV that is a true concern that nobody talks about. The real danger of CTV isn't whether it's the best, and we know it's nonrecursive. And we can use BIP8, so that isn't an issue either. And we already have shitcoins on BTC, so sapio shouldn't be your issue ( https://github.com/sapio-lang/sapio) Why exactly is your problem? You yourself have admitted it's useful for vaulting, and for reducing the cost of lightning onboarding, even though you ignored the dozens of other use cases enumerated in detail on utxos.org and elsewhere.
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
