Nostr Web Client

I’m a selfish #Bitcoin soft-fork supporter. I only support soft-forks that benefit me personally.

I supported SegWit because it improved scalability and privacy. Not just increasing block space, but denser use of block space—especially enabling Lightning.

I supported Taproot because it further improves density and also privacy. Taproot spending transactions reveal only the branch, not the whole script, which also enables vastly more complex scripts.

I OPPOSE Drivechains. No one has made a pitch that benefits me personally, and the risks of introducing a hash-based ownership model creates a new and possibly powerful mining centralization incentive.

I intend to support some from of covenant soft-fork because they will further densify use of block space. I just don’t know which of the competing proposals has the best risk/reward profile for me yet.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Badsamm 2y ago

First principle- me

Duncan Cary Palmer 2y ago

Where are the best forums to follow discussions and debates about proposed changes to bitcoin?🧐

jimbocoin 🃏 2y ago

I’m not sure. I don’t really keep up with it day-to-day.

When there’s outrage on social media, that’s when I look into it, usually by reading the source material. 😅

Duncan Cary Palmer 2y ago

Thanks.😃

vnprc 2y ago

covenants wiki

https://covenants.info/

best bitcoin dev forum

https://delvingbitcoin.org

Duncan Cary Palmer 2y ago

Thank you kindly, Fren nostr:npub16vzjeglr653mrmyqvu0trwaq29az753wr9th3hyrm5p63kz2zu8qzumhgd !🙏😃😆👍

vnprc 2y ago

Education is the greatest gift you can give yourself. 🫡

BTC_P2P 2y ago

I agree with everything here. I am sold on CTV and Vault but beyond that I’m still trying to figure out if the other proposed covenants are worth running. Will keep studying.

buffalo 2y ago

I like all of this.

I also like covenants so far but I want to think about it more and learn more before saying I support such a change.

jimbocoin 🃏 2y ago

Applying my selfish filter, today, I don’t need covenants. And I personally don’t expect to need them for a long time (if ever). BUT, they allow increased density at the UTXO layer, which (hopefully) means lower fees for me, whether I use them or not.

I think of it kind of like a chartered bus. If a bus line decides to operate, it makes denser use of the shared road than if the bus didn’t exist. So either more people get to travel, or there’s less congestion (than if those passengers were all in cars), or potentially both. The existence of busses makes the road more valuable and my drive less congested whether I ride the bus or not.

It’s not a perfect analogy (nothing ever is), but that’s how I justify it to myself.

The alternative to densification is either different tradeoffs (like Lightning) or, more likely, trust-based intermediaries. The value of Bitcoin derives from its censorship resistance, so staving off centralized third parties is in my interest (even if I don’t personally use those features).

Final note: arguments of this sort have been made about Drivechains—that they increase the value by making denser use of mainchain block space whether mainchainers use sidechains or not. But this argument doesn’t apply because of the increased incentives for miner centralization. Covenants do not have this changes-the-incentives drawback.

vnprc 2y ago

I think the selfish filter definitely applies once you consider second order effects. Covenants will probably 100x or 1000x the number of people who can trustlessly use bitcoin. This will grow the value of your stack by making bitcoin more useful to more people, who will start acquiring bitcoin in order to use it.