Nostr Web Client

Literally no one asked you to dox yourself, you said you were a developer so I said show me some stuff you developed and then you said no that will dox me, completely disingenuous but you haven't been very honest thus far anyway.

Yes the term L2 is used as shorthand to describe Liquid but it is in fact NOT an L2, it is a sidechain. To be a direct L2 on top of bitcoin you have to be able to have unilateral exit to the base bitcoin chain, an example being an HLTC.

Out of band payments are essentially no different then payments in LN channels which themselves are just unpublished bitcoin transactions and thus present little to no risk. It's a feature not a problem and can reduce congestion and lower on-chain transaction costs. Everything can always unroll to the chain if necessary so there should be no lost transparency or trustlessnes.

Plus CTV can do so so much more than just increase efficiency and create better vaults.

Have you even read/studied the CTV use-cases on utxos.org/uses ?

You still seem to be grossly misinformed as your primary source of information seems to come from podcasts instead of any actual research and development.

I'd say I look forward to your reply but it will probably just parrot more podcast quotes.

techfeudalist 1y ago 💬 1

I presented TWO quotes from notable developers that contradict you and you replied with no evidence, no logic, nothing. There’s ELI5 and ALY5 - argue like you’re five.

You can’t just stomp your feet and say “No it doesn’t!”

Podcasts? Everyone can see that you just ignored the direct quotes. You just completely pretended you didn’t see them! 😂

You’re in disbelief because you thought I was misinformed and yet you found yourself unable to respond to DIRECT quotes from notable developers. I can tell that you still don’t understand what they said.

You said:

“Out of band payments are essentially no different then payments in LN channels which themselves are just unpublished bitcoin transactions and thus present little to no risk.“

This is why I can tell you don’t get it yet. The problem is not HOW they’re paying the miners. It’s WHY they’re paying them.

I can tell you want to learn but are very confused right now. My advice is to focus first on Matt’s article. Why does he say that private out of band payments to miners create centralization risk?

Once you understand that, then dig into why Peter admitted that CAT and CTV can encourage these private out-of-band payments.

BTW, to understand why Peter admitted the risk, you must first understand the difference between ON-CHAIN logic and OFF-CHAIN logic.

Covenants and arbitrary code execution in systems like Liquid, etc are OFF chain and don’t create centralizing MEV (“MEVil”).

With CAT and CTV, the logic is ON chain which why they can create centralizing MEV.

**That’s why Peter admitted the risk.** He knows the difference between on-chain and off-chain logic and you don’t (yet).

So again, you need to understand why Peter and Matt said what they did, and why that contradicts your original assumption.

If you get stuck or want to discuss, just let me know! I realize that this topic is nuanced and deeper into the weeds than most people decide to go.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE 1y ago 💬 1

> You just completely pretended you didn’t see them!

How could I pretend I didn't see the podcast quotes when I literally made fun of you for using them as some kind of engineering fact?

> DIRECT quotes from notable developers

False, Samspon Mow is not a developer.

>It’s WHY they’re paying them.

Miners are getting paid for the same reason with or without CTV.

>Why does he say that private out of band payments to miners create centralization risk?

Because he hasn't thought it all the way through yet, clearly.

>Covenants and arbitrary code execution in systems like Liquid, etc are OFF chain, with CAT and CTV, the logic is ON chain

CTV can absolutely create covenants with off-chain logic and payments via virtual UTXOs, study ark

It's clear you want to just listen to podcasters instead of actually learn the fundamentals of what's happening in the code.

Best of luck.

techfeudalist 1y ago 💬 1

😂 so funny! You’re still pretending that I didn’t send you direct quotes from Peter and Matt! We all know why you ignore them. You’re not capable of responding. You were so overconfident and now you’re just embarrassed.

Here, I’ll send them again so everyone following you can see you’re pretending not to see them.

Here is Peter admitting that both CAT and CTV add risks. He says:

“Unlike OP_CAT, CTV doesn’t appear to raise much risk of unintended consequences beyond encouraging out-of-band fee payments in certain cases. This isn’t ideal.”

The risk that Peter identified for CTV is “encouraging out of band fee payments”.

https://petertodd.org/2024/covenant-dependent-layer-2-review

Here’s Matt Corallo explaining why these can motivate miner centralization:

https://x.com/TheBlueMatt/status/1780558009841643833

Matt argues that these payments to miners are a risk because they encourage centralization:

“More recently, out of band payments to miners have become popular again, allowing individuals to pay large pools for the inclusion of their transaction(s) using payments outside of the normal bitcoin transaction fee. This can create substantial MEVil [centralization MEV risk] […]”

There you go! You can keep ignoring them but we all know that I sent them and you couldn’t respond.

🫳 🎤

Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE 1y ago 💬 1

The only one that should be embarrassed is you basing all of your information solely on podcast interviews.

I suggest you do better and do some actual research on utxos.org/uses since you clearly never even heard of the site while attempting to claim that CTV can cause miner centralization.

Matt didn't write CTV and is wrong.

Peter didn't write CTV and is wrong.

If you don't understand that out of band payments is not a bad thing because it's the same as an LN payment then you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe you should read some foundation articles on my website bitcoindev.org.

The only one that is ignoring anything is you, best of luck on your "research" by doing nothing but listening to podcasts, the rest of us have work to do.

techfeudalist 1y ago 💬 1

😂 podcast? Which one of Peter’s or Matt’s written articles is the podcast?

Not sure what “podcast” you heard there, but did those voices in your head tell you that Peter and Matt were wrong?

You know, telling me “the voices said so”, would actually be more evidence and logic than what you presented!

I learned a lot here. Peter, Matt and everyone are wrong. But only you know why but you can’t explain. But the answer is somewhere on your website but you’re too busy to tell me what it is. 😂😂

I’m sad that you became so busy when you couldn’t articulate an answer. I was hoping you were going to try and explain why Peter and Matt were wrong. Oh well. 🤷‍♂️

Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE 1y ago 💬 1

I told you the answer, you simply don't believe me. You've got alot more research to do. Best of luck.

techfeudalist 1y ago 💬 1

Oh, you’re not busy anymore! Hope you had the time to read the thread with Matt Black.

Correction: you told me your opinion and couldn’t provide any logic or evidence. Everyone can see you didn’t answer anything. Btw, you know that only midwits believe strongly in something they can’t defend, right? Must have been a blow to your ego to discover you had nothing.

I know, I know. The answer is just that Peter Todd, Matt Corallo, everyone is wrong. But why? …And you can’t explain. 🤡😂

It’s funny how you keep responding to me with nothing. I must be living rent free in there.

Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE 1y ago 💬 1

Apologies I can't find time to reply to lazy douchebags who'd rather save face with insults and emojis than do any actual research.

You've been wrong about several points in this discussion and when you're wrong you brush over them and move on to the next goal post.

I've already told you that CTV doesn't cause MEV, out of band payments are no diff than LN payments, and even Peter Todd says "It’s fair to say that CTV has the broadest support among the technical community of any covenant opcode proposal because of its relative simplicity and wide range of use-cases."

Best of luck with more podcast "research" of yours.

techfeudalist 1y ago

Hey, you read Peter’s paper! Nice. You finally figured out that it wasn’t a podcast. 👍

Notice that Peter didn’t say “because it’s risk free”. Or maybe you didn’t? You got distracted on his comment regarding use cases. We weren’t even talking about that. 🤷‍♂️

Ah, you’re busy now. Still waiting for you to explain why Peter is wrong about the risk. I guess I’m going to be here a long time. 😴

PS. Remember, those who feel strongly about something they can’t defend…