Hey, guy. That makes sense. My ignorance of the "Oh no, op codes are dangerous" position chiefly comes from my inability to understand the thought process on coming to the conclusion that they are riskier than the risk of doing nothing at all. On top of that, many proposed changes are already tested and have been so for many years. CTV is an example, which is a very tiny change, but powers up so much. I think Shinobi debating Lyn on bitcoin magazine recently was a really good listen to dive in on that.
This is a good place to start on the concepts. The idea that we should just arbitrarily turn on a ton of functions without any concrete ideas on the risks involved in doing so, especially when activating each one creates an exponentially greater combination for each additional op_code, is just incredibly dangerous.
I think this is exactly why Satoshi disabled them. Recognizing that there was no clear limitation for what can be executed with them. If you can do generic math, then it’s possible to can create functions that produce infinite outputs.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/6OKoTAc9gqdjIRMmnn9Fk0?si=4aCwY8xVQ8uFywUix18LUg
Discussion
I do support CTV for that reason. Very well defined, very clear what it can and cannot do, tested at length, and very useful.
What's the best counter argument you've come across?
I feel I had some pretty good ones early on, lol. I did a few episodes specifically against CTV, but I was operating on incorrect understanding of how precisely it worked and so the opposition I had was using the wrong incentives.
Basically all of the major arguments against it that I know of are incorrect, imo, by merely understanding exactly how it works. I’m sure there is somebody out there who has an accurate picture of it but is still opposing, I just don’t know unfortunately.