I really don’t get the equating of CTV with either the “too much complexity” or the “this is about shitcoins” argument. This is a basic primitive that seems to me that it will very likely help to reduce, not increase, the complexity of L2 designs at scale. And I can’t see how it does anything to help shitcoins or why it would matter. nostr:note18k3ayydxy3cttdjezh0zdyd49p98mxn3p7mywr6hnc737m8akk3sdhz83a
Discussion
was about to ask where can i read more about CTV. then i looked up your latest episode... 🤙
*refresh* 2nd latest
So my question would be is it more productive atm to concentrate on changes allowing scaling or should privacy be more of a concern? In an era where fincen is basically saying privacy is illegal that worries me more than high fees and scaling. Maybe one doesnt come before the other but maybe it should?
Scaling is a privacy issue as well. If we cannot scale in a sovereign or even semi sovereign fashion, then we are stuck with custodians, which is the worst case scenario for privacy.
In addition, most L2 tools are inherently privacy benefits as well, by merely taking the payment/settlement off chain, the permanent record is default removed, so the dynamic is immediately something that can be turned in the user’s benefit much easier.
A great example with CTV, if you and a family it trusted group is using a timeout tree or other CTV based scaling solution, then it’s not obvious at all that the single UTXO is actually owned by maybe 50 different people, and those wallet transactions aggregated can be mostly obfuscated entirely off chain, so ownership can change without hitting the chain with any user specific data that can be traced through a UTXO history.