On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 11:12:05AM +, Gloria Zhao wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> > You make a good point that the commitment transaction also needs to be
> included
> > in my calculations. But you are incorrect about the size of them.
>
> > With taproot and ephemeral anchors, a typical commitment
On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 11:12:05AM +, Gloria Zhao wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> > You make a good point that the commitment transaction also needs to be
> included
> > in my calculations. But you are incorrect about the size of them.
>
> > With taproot and ephemeral anchors, a typical commitment
On Tue, Jan 2, 2024, 8:52 AM Michael Folkson
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
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
Erik,
Fees AKA costs are the best spam control system and I thank you for
highlighting that.
However, I think that bitcoin has yet to receive sufficient payments
usage to challenge credit card payments system when it comes to a race
to the bottom in terms of processing transactional fees.
In
>
> .
>
> In the USA, where I am, large businesses like UBER, Lyft, and many major
> telecom, cable, & electric utilities process huge volumes of regular and
> irregular credit card payments on a monthly basis. Almost none oft hose
> transactions are completed in bitcoin.
>
Unfortunately block
1. Claiming that something that isn't activated (unusable) isn't used as a
non-argument
2. Talking about activation methods is orthogonal. Bip8 is fine.
3. Covenants allow trustless utxos sharing and also are needed for
vaulting. The numerous use cases are documented, built out and on signet
Hi Peter,
> You make a good point that the commitment transaction also needs to be
included
> in my calculations. But you are incorrect about the size of them.
> With taproot and ephemeral anchors, a typical commitment transaction
would have
> a single-sig input (musig), two taproot outputs, and
Hi Erik
> So what exactly are the risks of CTV over multi-sig?
It is a strange comparison. Multisig is active onchain and is being used today
for all sorts of things including Lightning and setups that address risk of
single key loss or malicious signing. When discussing risks of CTV there are
