Curious which part do you disagree with?
Discussion
Splitting headache
🫨
How about the part where a dubious influencooor claims a large anonymous miner claims miners will fork?
Yeh that was uncalled for.
Bitcoin has probably ossified at some level--which I see as a good thing
That said, as a Bible believer myself, Bitcoin will someday ultimately "fail" in the sense that it will get subsumed or somehow captured by the mark of the beast / worship of the beast system
Yeh I think it has. Been speaking to bip 119 author and CTV advocates and they seem to think there isn’t much hope pushing any chances to btc core anymore.
My "pet" fork , which would be a hard fork, haha, would be to tighten monetary policy (I.e. reduce block reward) in order to induce price hyperbitcoinization and pre-empt a long grinding economic war between the USD zone and the rest :)
Rubin may have a good proposal, I can't speak to the technical details but he claims it doesn't allow recursive covenants. The issue is, he went about it very poorly, he basically just asked one day "OK, so I'm gonna launch a UASF because I don't see any disagreements". Then, because everyone told him no he got mad and said "bitcoins ossified and we can't do anything!" He comes across as very narcissistic, and that's fine to a degree, people that smart are probably not the best people-persons, but he has to learn patience, let these ideas rattle around for a while and the best covenant proposal will win. We aren't making any progress by turning this into a game of political football.
I think covenants will unlock quite a bit of potential for us, and you can see a lot of the inflooencers starting to be more amenable to it even though they started as "fuck this I'm voting with my node". Bitcoin is not ossified, we literally just got full RBF and it looks like its picking up adoption, and its possibly going faster than existing service providers can adapt to, in fact there are services that simply will not be able to provide the same functionality because of it ie. 0conf layer 1 to layer 2 swaps. Completely lost in these discussions seem to be in what exactly the new transaction type would entail, and a game theoretic analysis of whether the " miners become custodians" argument is valid, and I'd love to have those discussions and learn for myself.
"good idea"
"Some" risks
The last paragraph about lightning is not a true statement
Lots of good debate that I've seen, but Corallo's comment that Stratum v2 is the actual urgent upgrade seems reasonable?
I agree. I think reason drivechain is only controversial recently because of mining pool centralisation risk. I think Paul Sztorc said he will help fund stratum v2 development if anyones interested.
I'm not sure funding is the issue??
I dont know if there is an issue. Just pointing out even the bip300 author wants to help increase the decentralise mining pools.
Sure, can debate endlessly about this--even the drive chain VC funding
For example, 3 million USD could train a lot of next-gen bitcoin developers in places like El Sal at this point, arguably better spent money!
Yep $3 Million is literally nothing compared to most shitcoin defi and not projects on ETH lol. I think Stacks received over $150 million in 2021 from just VCs.
Nostr and Lightning folks apparently built these protocols with zero funding from VCs lol.
We could talk about how Saylor has way more influence over bitcoin than anyone else as he owns 1% of the bitcoins in existence and runs the bitcoin mining council which pushes the ESG narrative for big corporate miners who’s shareholders are blackrock.
*nft projects
ESG is something that most everyone loves (but, in the end, can't agree on)
Consensus is hard :)
Whats not true? Mathematically lightning doesnt scale to billions of its users. People are more likely to end having to trust their bitcoin with LSPs or custodian ln wallets. Already we seeing 95% of lightning users using a custodial wallet despite all the education to hold their own keys.