Nostr Web Client

Speedster 1y ago

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the matter

SUPERMAX 1y ago

Controversy ensue here but I like your reasoning

What is it, only 80M or 100M UTXO's can exist? Something like that

jimbocoin 🃏 1y ago

In the fullness of time, the size of the UTXO set is probably unbounded.

This is about getting more people to be able to hold keys and be able to settle to chain in any given fixed time period. We do this by increasing the density of data encoded in transactions.

SegWit and Taproot represented similar density improvements. Increasing data density is how we preserve decentralization while scaling participation.

When we don’t scale participation, we get inflation by custodians.

SUPERMAX 1y ago

As long as its a soft-fork which we vet thoroughly and understand the upgrade I'm all for it

Bard 1y ago

is sharing a UTXO the same as having one? if not your argument for why falls apart.

jimbocoin 🃏 1y ago

“The same” is a quagmire. Two things that are different are never the same, by definition.

Sharing UTXOs is a way to increase data density. Increasing data density lets us scale participation without sacrificing decentralization.

SegWit and Taproot increased data density. Lighting is a form of UTXO sharing. Covenants will continue the process of densification.

We can’t stop people from using custody solutions that inflate supply. But if we don’t continue to densify, we guarantee that people will do so.

Bard 1y ago

I am an idiot, thanks for taking the time.

covenants -> data density -> temporarily delayed TX fee increase -> more key holders

is this your why argument?

jimbocoin 🃏 1y ago

Data density -> more capacity -> more participation -> less demand for custodians -> less IOU printing -> less dilution (NGU)

zmagellan 1y ago

Aren't IOUs of btc just another shitcoin? I dont see how that would dilute you. They both can have paralel markets, just like non-kyc btc is more expensive than kycd btc...

zmagellan 1y ago

I doubt most of the people will hold IOUs. And most (which are the current users) with a current supply of more than 19M, should value the real btc

jimbocoin 🃏 1y ago

We already have been diluted. FTX is a great example. They took Bitcoin deposits, then sold them rather than holding them on the books. People leaving their coins on FTX, believing in the IOUs, caused reduced price for everyone (dilution).

While you and I agree that Bitcoin is Bitcoin (and IOUs are shitcoins), other people believing in the IOUs does and has caused dilutive effects on the value of our coins.

In and of itself, this is somewhat unavoidable. We can’t stop people from buying, holding and believing in IOUs. However, if we fail to densify transactions, we guarantee that people will do this. IOUs are the alternative to scaling, and they are dilutive.

StackSats.IO 1y ago

I am tacitly with you. Proponents of covenants however are absolutely fukn awful at explaining their case.

They don’t even seem to understand who they are trying to sell the idea to.

Bitcoin can’t be led by such people if it is to grow which we both agree it must.

“So what? Banks (pegged shitcoins, eCash, etc.) WILL print in excess of reserves. This always happens.”

This is the wrong framing entirely.

Covenants need their own positive framing, not a negative one opposed to the risks of alternatives.

AncapAnon - Activate OP_GFY now! 1y ago

Custodial “alternatives” have always been there in the form of exchanges and lots of people are satisfied with holding their IOUs instead of real Bitcoin, even at 1 sat/vB fees.

As nostr:npub12rv5lskctqxxs2c8rf2zlzc7xx3qpvzs3w4etgemauy9thegr43sf485vg says every time he gets interviewed, eCash is just a better alternative to custodial accounts. Plus, fees are now pretty reasonable again.

All to say there is no looming crisis here. Let the galaxy brain protocol developers reach consensus amongst themselves on a proposed soft fork with reasonable activation parameters, support from app developers in the form of prototypes, and guarantees of no unintended consequences.

No need for us noderunners to start agitating for the latest thing right now.

jimbocoin 🃏 1y ago

The reason to push for it now is that it takes time to reach consensus and then even more time to develop UX. There’s a delay of potentially years between when a protocol improvement rolls out and when wallets offer the ability to use it.

High Heel King 1y ago

We've been discussing them for years. Covenants are probably coming and I'm generally pro CTV, but there's not a burning need for it right now.

jimbocoin 🃏 1y ago

The burning need is to start building consensus on a UASF. This will take time. It is not prudent to wait until there’s a “burning need” to get the ball rolling. That’s a recipe for a rushed rollout.

Plus, I’m looking to reduce the likelihood of more big custodial collapses like Mt. Gox and FTX. If we wait, the next one could be Coinbase, or some as-yet-unknown custodian that’s even bigger.

Getting the UASF ball rolling now is capacity planning for the “suddenly” rush that’s around the corner.

e1

BOL 1y ago

I remember your man on livera a long time ago and the height of his argument pro-CTV was to benefit coinbase ... Made me a pretty hard no myself ... CTV does nothing to prevent all the digital identity prisons being erected, no? That is a way bigger issue IMO... in terms of maintaining the p2p electronic cash vision of bitcoin

Posted from grapheneOS

jimbocoin 🃏 1y ago

Coinbase is historically bad at adopting technology that’s good for them. Look how long it took them to batch transactions. They’re only just now starting to implement Lightning. Even after CTV activates, I wouldn’t expect Coinbase to take advantage for years.

e1

BOL 1y ago

I would go further than "bad adopters" ... Anyway, like others said, the persuasion is poor ... Specifically, does CTV or other option allow coins to be encumbered by adversaries of bitcoin ? I.e. creating a wedge to force digital identity into bitcoin use , non-fungibility, etc

The bar for significant change is very high at this juncture (crack up of incumbent systems and "proposal" of new systems at global levels)

jimbocoin 🃏 1y ago

Your keys, your coins, both with and without covenants. Your addresses encode your spending conditions—the spending conditions you opted into (single sig, multisig, etc.) None of the covenant proposals alter this.

What covenants allow is construction of an address that pays out to pre-specified list of one or more other addresses. So someone who owes you coin could wrap it in an address that aggregates coins to you and others. That’s the point of it, in fact, to create density so that more than one beneficiary can share a UTXO.

Whether you accept this as payment is up to you.

On the question of whether an adversary could use covenants maliciously. Current multisig would be a better adversarial tool. That is, adversary sends the coin to a 2-of-3 where your address is just one, so you have to get permission from another signer to spend. You would be within your rights to refuse this as “payment” since you’re not in full control of the coin. (I would refuse)

If a State wanted to enact spending controls, inserting themselves as signers in multisig is superior to trying to negotiate covenant addresses that encode spending criteria. With the multisig, they can approve or withhold approval arbitrarily over time. With a covenant, they’d have to decide up front how the coin could be spent and work with you to create that script. An adversarial despot would much prefer the flexibility and ease-of-use of mandatory multisig.

For this reason, on the point of adversarial encumbrance, I do not see any of the proposals to be worse than the status quo.

e1

BOL 1y ago

Thanks, useful to consider, the attacks will continue so

AncapAnon - Activate OP_GFY now! 1y ago

Ok but push for what exactly? And how? I hold a bag and run a node. I can geek out on applied cryptography and game theory on my free time, but I’m not equipped to evaluate all of the proposals from first principles. So I will just watch from the sidelines until there is a UASF client that is widely supported by those qualified to evaluate it. If, and only if, I find it credible and useful, then I will upgrade my node. If its malicious and they try speedy trial, then I will run the URSF client.

Guy Swann 1y ago

Seconded. And also we need CISA

Ademan 1y ago

I do think CISA is worthwhile but CTV is essentially ready. CISA is a research project.

Guy Swann 1y ago

Very true. It needs a lot more time and focus, but honestly CTV is good to go today and I think increasingly we have consensus on it.

Stirling Forge 1y ago

I do not think we have consensus on any changes rn. What makes you feel that way?

Ademan 1y ago

A lot of the FUD has been dispelled, my impression is people generally understand it better, and for me knowing that it's

1. very safe and conservative

2. enables a number of interesting applications

3. Can be upgraded later to address issues the "CTV is not powerful enough" crowd come up with

Makes it seem like a very good candidate for adoption. nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qgawaehxw309ahx7um5wghx6at5d9h8jampd3kx2apwvdhk6tcpzemhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejz7qpqaz9xj85cmxv8e9j9y80lvqp97crsqdu2fpu3srwthd99qfu9qsgsaz04hz always talks about wanting vaults, well CTV gives us vaults all by itself (though OP_VAULT+CTV is better). https://github.com/jamesob/simple-ctv-vault It's probably worth activating CTV just for vaults alone tbh.

Ronin 1y ago

Not sure if covenants will help that a lot, I am a bit skeptical about unilateral exits in this model.

jimbocoin 🃏 1y ago

It could be prohibitively expensive to land the TX that releases your funds by yourself, yes.

oobiyou 1y ago

Don’t really like this part.

“So whereas in a “normal” Bitcoin script, we only require specific conditions to be met to unlock a particular requirement (sign a transaction with a private key, for example), in a covenant, we go a step further by restricting what you can do with that coin, or where a coin can be spent. “

https://cointelegraph.com/explained/what-are-bitcoin-covenants-and-how-do-they-work

DcntralizedMind 1y ago

What changed your mind? A listen or read you could share?

jimbocoin 🃏 1y ago

After listening to Shinobi a while back on a podcast, I came to understand that covenants allow denser use of block space (sharing UTXOs) and that without this, people holding keys on chain would necessarily be a minority of users.

In such a world, as more people want to use Bitcoin, they’ll have to fall back on custodial solutions. I heard Francis of Bull Bitcoin talking on a pod about Liquid being a possible solution. I’ve heard Livera talk about fedimints. I’ve seen people using eCash lately. People buying into ETFs. etc. etc.

We must not give up on peer-to-peer cash. If we cede to banks, we’re guaranteed to get diluted by IOUs and risk centralization (as happened with fiat currency).

We can’t stop people from using custodians. But if we don’t continue to densify, we guarantee that they will.

e1

BOL 1y ago

I can see the push for data density as you state... Could it be used in the opposite way though?? Like what we saw with ordinals?

jimbocoin 🃏 1y ago

Good question. First, a point of order: Taproot did not enable Ordinals. Ordinals were first invented in 2012 under the name “colored coins”. Ordinals is just a rebrand of an old idea using modern OP codes.

From the perspective of regular users like us, Ordinal transactions are merely space-inefficient. That is, they use way more block space than strictly necessary to transfer sats. Wasting block space is possible no matter what features are enabled/removed.

But then again, waste is in the eye of the beholder. A multisig transaction uses more block space than a single sig transaction. From the single sig enjoyer’s perspective, multisig users are wasting block space.

Whether transactions are block-space efficient or not, they must be FEE-efficient. Every transaction, to be mined at all, must outcompete lower-fee transactions. Block space is pay-to-play.

And thankfully so! The fee market is what keeps Bitcoin censorship resistant. A censored party can increase their offered fee until it’s irresistible to some miner to take. Miners that censor pay for their prejudice in lost revenue.

So having said all that, your question is whether covenants, while designed to increase space efficiency, could be used to instead to create space-inefficient transactions (Ordinals, etc.). I must admit that since any feature of Bitcoin’s locking script could be used inefficiently, it stands to reason that someone could use covenant OP codes in this way.

Would an Ordinal developer be likely to do so? My guess would be “no”, because there are better (less inefficient) ways of encoding their garbage than trying to shoehorn a covenant OP for this purpose.

e1

BOL 1y ago

Thanks again!

However, could a covenant "bake in" high future data use of a utxo ... Or "bake it in" for only certain uses of a utxo (I.e. for vendor/government lock-in)...

bitznsatz 1y ago

What’s NGU?

jimbocoin 🃏 1y ago

Number Go Up. Price appreciationx

A Good Many 1y ago

แป๊ะไว้ก่อน เดี๋ยวกลับมาอ่านต่อ

nostr:nevent1qqsz3el4acj7frddl7c3947f908l3flmx4jfwhpq888mt8pyjrtyz8qpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejsygrpgprcexhp9uwsk4qw03tcqejfxfafrvzqkplhhg77ms6he2cd55psgqqqqqqswqm7t7

Reply to this note

Discussion