https://petertodd.org/2024/covenant-dependent-layer-2-review
βSoft-Fork/Covenant Dependent Layer 2 Reviewβ
I've finally published my big article sponsored by Fulgur Ventures, analyzing all the main covenant proposals, and the L2 proposals that would use them.
tl;dr: Ark is pretty cool, and CTV is a good way to get it.
#Bitcoin scaling, Trustless L2s, covenants, future soft forks.
Some clarity about many controversial topics by nostr:npub1ej493cmun8y9h3082spg5uvt63jgtewneve526g7e2urca2afrxqm3ndrm, courtesy of Fulgur Ventures!
nostr:note1num4zp4qefrxtehc6gn8e7p0n43pcaawmkd0cctslvjz58lcvdqs5euxr9
I got set a time for reading this one
Thank you π
Big read, and great work !
I know itβs a bit different but no word on RGB ?
Asking for a friend π
Well , after reading my comment, rgb is really not in this list , sorry π
I don't understand this part
> On the other hand, if the user waits until the last moment8, the cost could be nearly zero, at the risk of missing the expiration time.
How can it be zero? The ASP will take that 0.23% upfront as a fee for the service of providing liquidity.
If the V-UTXO is about to expire, the ASP will get their liquidity back soon; if they're borrowing liquidity they don't need to borrow it for very long.
This is its Achilles heel. The constant churning and txn from pool to pool is going to be a turnoff
Peter, you admit that it ADDS RISK:
βUnlike OP_CAT, CTV doesnβt appear to raise much risk of unintended consequences beyond encouraging out-of-band fee payments in certain cases. This isnβt ideal. But no-one has come up with a widely supported alternative.
My personal recommendation: do a consensus cleanup soft-fork, followed by CTV.β
YOU HAVE NO BASIS TO ASSESS FUTURE RISK. YOU CANT KNOW THE FUTURE AND HOW IT MIGHT BE ABUSED.
ADD NO RISK TO BITCOIN.
DEVS MUST FIRST DO NO HARM.
You have no right to gamble with the worldβs money, and our hope for the future.
nostr:note1w0l22lnspmz86a6un0w52mssv22skgltyhhwmuuqf0ph0qwmd4cqjwrvd9
This. I hope more devs resist risky "upgrades"
amazing and comprehensive article by nostr:npub1ej493cmun8y9h3082spg5uvt63jgtewneve526g7e2urca2afrxqm3ndrm.
The only thing that I would add is that the analysis of how many channel openings or splicing are possible in a year is not so relevant.
The biggest limit is distribution of wealth, which is likely to follow a power law, which means that ~80% won't be able to afford an UTXO.
nostr:note1num4zp4qefrxtehc6gn8e7p0n43pcaawmkd0cctslvjz58lcvdqs5euxr9
"Fulgur Ventures is a venture capital firm that focuses on investing in Bitcoin-related technologies and companies."
The company got exactly the result it ordered
π€
"While the authors of Ark initially imagined a very optimistic scenario where new rounds every few seconds, initial bootstrapping will probably have to happen with use-cases that can afford to wait multiple hours for an Ark transaction to confirm, if transaction fees are not subsidized."
I'm confused what these rounds are. How can they happen more frequently than blocks on the main chain? What are the practical implications of the rounds happening only once per day? Are vUTXOs always spent into a new round, limiting the number of transactions one can make?
Can you comment on OP_TXHASH's recursiveness?
Can systems like ARK allow ASP splits? The idea is that if the ASP acts up, instead of a leaf node in the Merkel tree, a whole branch decides to leave and start their own ASP without unpacking the whole branch on chain in the process?
Someone made an audio book of my L2 article! Crazy.
