Re: [bitcoin-dev] Stumbling into a contentious soft fork activation attempt

2022-02-22 Thread Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev
> look at how lightning ate up fees to keep bitcoin stable, we can't "scale" too quickly either I strongly disagree with this. We should be scaling Bitcoin as fast as we can. There is no reason to delay scaling for the purposes of keeping fees high. If we need fees to be higher, we can lower the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Stumbling into a contentious soft fork activation attempt

2022-02-21 Thread Prayank via bitcoin-dev
Goog morning ZmnSCPxj, Context: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48.msg329#msg329 Maybe I should have rephrased it and quote Satoshi. I agree I should not speak for others and it was not my intention in the email. > If Satoshi refuses to participate in Bitcoin development today, who

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Stumbling into a contentious soft fork activation attempt

2022-02-21 Thread ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev
> Good morning Prayank, > > (offlist) My apologies. I pushed the wrong button, I should have pressed "Reply" and not "Reply All". Regards, ZmnSCPxj ___ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Stumbling into a contentious soft fork activation attempt

2022-02-21 Thread ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev
Good morning, > If this is the reason to stop/delay improvements in bitcoin, maybe it applies > for Taproot as well although I don't remember reading such things in your > posts or maybe missed it. Perhaps a thing to note, is that if it allows us to move some activity off-chain, and reduce

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Stumbling into a contentious soft fork activation attempt

2022-02-21 Thread ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev
Good morning Prayank, (offlist) > Satoshi I object to the invocation of Satoshi here, and in general. If Satoshi wants to participate in Bitcoin development today, he can speak for himself. If Satoshi refuses to participate in Bitcoin development today, who cares what his opinion is? Satoshi

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Stumbling into a contentious soft fork activation attempt

2022-02-21 Thread Prayank via bitcoin-dev
> note how ETH has quite high on chain fees for basic transactions,> because > there are so many use-cases where the per-tx value can afford much> higher > fees. That kind of expansion of use-case also arguably harms Bitcoin as> a > whole by providing more fuel for a future contentious

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Stumbling into a contentious soft fork activation attempt

2022-02-20 Thread Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev
> note how ETH has quite high on chain fees for basic transactions, > because there are so many use-cases where the per-tx value can afford much > higher fees. That kind of expansion of use-case also arguably harms Bitcoin as > a whole by providing more fuel for a future contentious blocksize

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Stumbling into a contentious soft fork activation attempt

2022-02-18 Thread Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 02:57:30AM +0100, Prayank wrote: > Hi Peter, > > > that current lacks compelling use-cases clearly beneficial to all users > > All the use cases shared in below links look compelling enough to me and we > can do anything that a programmer could think of using such

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Stumbling into a contentious soft fork activation attempt

2022-01-18 Thread Prayank via bitcoin-dev
Hi Peter, > that current lacks compelling use-cases clearly beneficial to all users All the use cases shared in below links look compelling enough to me and we can do anything that a programmer could think of using such restrictions: https://utxos.org/uses/ https://rubin.io/archive/ > I

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Stumbling into a contentious soft fork activation attempt

2022-01-10 Thread Jeremy via bitcoin-dev
Please see the following bips PRs which are follow ups to the concrete actionables raised by Peter. Thanks for bringing these up, it certainly improves the reviewability of the BIP. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1271 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1272 -- @JeremyRubin

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Stumbling into a contentious soft fork activation attempt

2022-01-10 Thread Jeremy via bitcoin-dev
Hi Peter, Thank you for your review and feedback. Apologies for the difficulties in reviewing. The branch linked from the BIP is not the latest, the branch in the PR is what should be considered https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/21702 for review and has more thorough well documented tests

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Stumbling into a contentious soft fork activation attempt

2022-01-10 Thread Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
On Mon, Jan 03, 2022 at 02:05:20AM +, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev wrote: > There have been a number of “soft signals”, many expressing enthusiasm for > the speculated use cases of OP_CTV. Personally I share that enthusiasm like I > do with the prospect of curing cancer. But these soft

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Stumbling into a contentious soft fork activation attempt

2022-01-04 Thread Prayank via bitcoin-dev
> You are working on a use case of OP_CTV now? I think I mentioned clearly what I would be doing: 1. Review pull request 2. Create contracts with Sapio. This would help me review OP_CTV and learn new things. > Cool, you only recently announced you were working on Bitcoin Knots (and I > think

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Stumbling into a contentious soft fork activation attempt

2022-01-04 Thread Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev
You are working on a use case of OP_CTV now? Cool, you only recently announced you were working on Bitcoin Knots (and I think Wasabi before that) so I'm losing track of all the announcements. Regardless stick with it and build out more than a rudimentary proof of concept. That is one of the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Stumbling into a contentious soft fork activation attempt

2022-01-04 Thread Prayank via bitcoin-dev
What I have done related to OP_CTV? https://twitter.com/prayankgahlot/status/1456643891885592579 What am I currently working on that is not shared publicly and will do in next few weeks? Review pull request 21702 and write contracts using Sapio based on few ideas that I already have. What is

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Stumbling into a contentious soft fork activation attempt

2022-01-04 Thread Prayank via bitcoin-dev
Hi Christian, A few things are mentioned in these threads including unsolved research issues in which you were tagged and Richard Myers had even replied so I am assuming this is known: https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin/status/1460349481518465025

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Stumbling into a contentious soft fork activation attempt

2022-01-04 Thread Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev
> It should be ready to go in a few months IMO What is this assessment based on? I am assuming you haven't done a code review of the opcode, you haven't coded up a real world use case of OP_CTV (or even a primitive proof of concept), you haven't thought about alternative proposals for any

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Stumbling into a contentious soft fork activation attempt

2022-01-04 Thread Christian Decker via bitcoin-dev
Prayank via bitcoin-dev writes: >> To contrast with his approach, the authors and contributors of >> another future soft fork proposal (BIP 118 [3], SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT) >> aren’t promoting an imminent soft fork activation attempt and instead >> are building out and testing one of the speculated

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Stumbling into a contentious soft fork activation attempt

2022-01-04 Thread Prayank via bitcoin-dev
Hi Michael, > If OP_CTV is ready to go now and has overwhelming community support (I don’t > think either is true) it should surely have been included in the Taproot soft > fork (perhaps delayed) rather than going through the months of activation > wrangling and community outreach twice. It

[bitcoin-dev] Stumbling into a contentious soft fork activation attempt

2022-01-03 Thread Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev
I have already expressed my arguments on the regularity of soft forks [0]. Having spent months of my time on Taproot activation last year attempting to get at least rough community consensus on the activation method it seems crazy to me that some want to do that again so soon after Taproot