You're telling the guy who has read more about bitcoin than anyone else you know, to go study more? Now I'm intrigued as to what kind of uber level bitcoin of scholarship level you must have reached to be calling out Guy as effectively being a noob.
Discussion
He's a shitcoiner endorsing an attack on the protocol, that's really all you need to know.
That guy has no clue what he’s talking about. I muted him. He wouldn’t know the difference between multisig and an NFT if it slapped him. Thinking CTV has anything to do with shitcoins is so fucking stupid I suspect he might just be a troll account who doesn’t even like bitcoin or know anything about it.
The point is this podcaster wants to turn bitcoin into a shitcoin by adding new opcodes. Taproot was a disaster and lead to massive spam. Segwit, not much better.
I'm a professional software engineer with 30 years of experience and I've been studying the protocol on a technical level since before this guy knew what Bitcoin was.
His videos get 100 views, and this guy is your hero?
Covenants are an attack on bitcoin, they will only allow further exploitation of the protocol
Are you sure you're not exaggerating here? Have you really been studying the bitcoin protocol on a technical level since before 2011?
🤣🤣🤣 he’s a troll man, you’re wasting your time
I only troll people who want to fork in new opcodes.
I never said I have been studying Bitcoin since 2011. I think you might have misread something I said.
“I've been studying the protocol on a technical level since before this guy knew what Bitcoin was.”
#CommunityNotes
It's hyperbole. I have no idea who this guy is. His videos get 100 views and he's asking people to fork core, so he's a shitcoiner best I can tell.
If he's been studying bitcoin longer than me, then that's really sad.
Bitcoin should be feature complete.
Maybe it would be more productive to focus on the topic and the issues than the people. For example, Why do you think bitcoin is feature complete? I personally think it is inherently lacking in privacy at present. But perhaps the features bitcoin’s protocol already has are sufficient to enable full privacy on chain with appropriate workarounds? Or is privacy on chain not a desirable feature? I think it depends on what the use case is as to whether it is feature complete. I have no idea about what ctv offers, just putting out one example of where I wish bitcoin was slightly better.
You cannot have privacy in an open ledger, that's a completely different protocol. See Monero if that's what you want.
The problem with making it "better" is that the risk is a couple orders of magnitude more dangerous than any incremental improvement you might make.
The single biggest threat to bitcoin is that they will soft-fork in some new opcodes that bring with them unintended consequences. Think taproot, but worse.
That's all it will take is one opcode that someone figures out a way to exploit.
I agree, that holding a secret supply exploit in Monero is as powerful as the FED, controlling money supply.
Still USD is the preferred medium of exchange. Bitcoin is a hedge against both USD and Monero inflation and as such it has tremendous value. But both USD (fungible bydecree) and Monero are better monies (fungible through code).
Money:
1. store of value
2. medium of exchange
3. unit of account
There is no good money on Earth right now. I use bitcoin for #1 and eventually the others will follow.
You might ask why can't we just add ring signatures, stealth addresses, and confidential transactions to bitcoin... lots of reasons, but let's start with the fact that it makes the thing unauditable.
Tell me exactly how much monero exists... can you? Spin up your node and audit it. That's right, you can't.
There could be an inflation exploit and it's possible no one even knows about it.
Satoshi spoke on this subject. His opinion was that adding all this fancy shit was too risky. I agree with him. That's why we can't have privacy.
Privacy is one of those things, it's either baked into the protocol from day 1, or you will never get it.
Ultimately in the case of bitcoin, it was a tradeoff. No full privacy but full verifiability.
?cid=9b38fe91waw04wn9vgkhyk5lx57nlh0c07qikjh9tncdl4k6&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=gAnyone who tells you that adding new opcodes will scale bitcoin is either ignorant or malicious. In this guy's case I don't know which it is, I've never heard of "the guy who's read more about bitcoin than anyone else I know" which is an absurd assertion and should tell you right away he's full of shit. But in either case he's endorsing an attack on Bitcoin, it's really that simple.
Study BIP-119 if you want to know more.