> 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
> On Jan 2, 2024, at 10:50 AM, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
>
> 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
On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 01:54:04PM +, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > > But "target fixation" [0] is a thing too: maybe "CTV" (and/or "APO") were
> > > just a bad approach from the start.
> It is hard to discuss APO in a vacuum when this is going on the background
> but I'm
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
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 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
Hey AJ
Thanks for this, pretty much agree with all of it. It seems like a week doesn't
go by now without a new individual popping out the woodwork proposing an
upcoming activation of CTV with no new PoCs and no new insights. I'm not sure
what it is about CTV (versus say other proposals) that
So what exactly are the risks of CTV over multi-sig?
>
>
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Huh, this list is still active?
On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 10:34:52PM +, alicexbt via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I think CTV is not ready for activation yet. Although I want it to be
> activated and use payment pools, we still have some work to do and AJ is
> correct that we need to build more apps
Hi Bitcoin Developers,
I think CTV is not ready for activation yet. Although I want it to be activated
and use payment pools, we still have some work to do and AJ is correct that we
need to build more apps that use CTV on signet.
Reasons:
- Apart from a few PoCs that do not achieve anything
Hi Luke,
This is not the first time I am writing this but you keep ignoring it and
threaten with URSF. Please build BIP 8 client with LOT=TRUE if you think its
the best way to activate and share it so that users can run it.
I had created this branch specifically for it but needed help which I
This IS INDEED an attack on Bitcoin. It does not activate CTV - it would
(if users are fooled into using it) give MINERS the OPTION to activate
CTV. Nobody should run this, and if it gets any traction, it would
behoove the community to develop and run a "URSF" making blocks
signalling for it
13 matches
Mail list logo
