Shit is about to get serious. Participate in the discussion if you want your voices heard, either way.
Discussion
Manifesto-wars incoming
The letter claims that the signers believe that CSFS and CTV "have been proven to both safe and widely demanded". I think it is wise to verify that claim before the Bitcoin network takes action towards a soft fork. That's what the post was for.
Please repost for reach.
After 8 years, it has seen little adoption on Liquid or other chains. The greater risk is a contentious chain split, something that has happened before and could fracture Bitcoin in two. That kind of outcome would be existential. Any proposed use case must clearly offer more value than the risk it introduces. This one does not.
It's really hard to assess the value for the network, since value is subjective to each individual, and emergent behavior is hellishly difficult to predict. I personally would prefer if
- demand was coming from the base, not the devs. Devs could help spur demand by presenting a vaulting wallet and a symmetrical lightning implementation, such that users can see what they're getting/foregoing. I think some of this is happening, but it's not exactly widely known.
- some evolution has happened on testnet/signet, in which competing implementations of vaults and sym-LN battle it out until it becomes clear which option is the safest and most efficient.
Of course that's a lot to ask, and I'm not the one doing the actual coding, so it's easy for me to say. But I hope it'll contribute a little as to what node runners may be thinking. It's better than no signal, or yelling.
Having said that, GM!