Yeah and based on the utter mess that segwit and taproot were, I'm in no hurry for more changes.
Bitcoin is, in my opinion, feature complete.
You're welcome to do all the shitcoining you want. See you back here in a few years when you've studied more. No shame though, takes many of us a lot of years to realize why it's Bitcoin only
You're telling the guy who has read more about bitcoin than anyone else you know, to go study more? Now I'm intrigued as to what kind of uber level bitcoin of scholarship level you must have reached to be calling out Guy as effectively being a noob.
He's a shitcoiner endorsing an attack on the protocol, that's really all you need to know.
That guy has no clue what he’s talking about. I muted him. He wouldn’t know the difference between multisig and an NFT if it slapped him. Thinking CTV has anything to do with shitcoins is so fucking stupid I suspect he might just be a troll account who doesn’t even like bitcoin or know anything about it.
The point is this podcaster wants to turn bitcoin into a shitcoin by adding new opcodes. Taproot was a disaster and lead to massive spam. Segwit, not much better.
I'm a professional software engineer with 30 years of experience and I've been studying the protocol on a technical level since before this guy knew what Bitcoin was.
His videos get 100 views, and this guy is your hero?
Covenants are an attack on bitcoin, they will only allow further exploitation of the protocol
Are you sure you're not exaggerating here? Have you really been studying the bitcoin protocol on a technical level since before 2011?
🤣🤣🤣 he’s a troll man, you’re wasting your time
I only troll people who want to fork in new opcodes.
I never said I have been studying Bitcoin since 2011. I think you might have misread something I said.
“I've been studying the protocol on a technical level since before this guy knew what Bitcoin was.”
#CommunityNotes
It's hyperbole. I have no idea who this guy is. His videos get 100 views and he's asking people to fork core, so he's a shitcoiner best I can tell.
If he's been studying bitcoin longer than me, then that's really sad.
Bitcoin should be feature complete.
Maybe it would be more productive to focus on the topic and the issues than the people. For example, Why do you think bitcoin is feature complete? I personally think it is inherently lacking in privacy at present. But perhaps the features bitcoin’s protocol already has are sufficient to enable full privacy on chain with appropriate workarounds? Or is privacy on chain not a desirable feature? I think it depends on what the use case is as to whether it is feature complete. I have no idea about what ctv offers, just putting out one example of where I wish bitcoin was slightly better.
You cannot have privacy in an open ledger, that's a completely different protocol. See Monero if that's what you want.
The problem with making it "better" is that the risk is a couple orders of magnitude more dangerous than any incremental improvement you might make.
The single biggest threat to bitcoin is that they will soft-fork in some new opcodes that bring with them unintended consequences. Think taproot, but worse.
That's all it will take is one opcode that someone figures out a way to exploit.
I agree, that holding a secret supply exploit in Monero is as powerful as the FED, controlling money supply.
Still USD is the preferred medium of exchange. Bitcoin is a hedge against both USD and Monero inflation and as such it has tremendous value. But both USD (fungible bydecree) and Monero are better monies (fungible through code).
Money:
1. store of value
2. medium of exchange
3. unit of account
There is no good money on Earth right now. I use bitcoin for #1 and eventually the others will follow.
You might ask why can't we just add ring signatures, stealth addresses, and confidential transactions to bitcoin... lots of reasons, but let's start with the fact that it makes the thing unauditable.
Tell me exactly how much monero exists... can you? Spin up your node and audit it. That's right, you can't.
There could be an inflation exploit and it's possible no one even knows about it.
Satoshi spoke on this subject. His opinion was that adding all this fancy shit was too risky. I agree with him. That's why we can't have privacy.
Privacy is one of those things, it's either baked into the protocol from day 1, or you will never get it.
Ultimately in the case of bitcoin, it was a tradeoff. No full privacy but full verifiability.
Anyone who tells you that adding new opcodes will scale bitcoin is either ignorant or malicious. In this guy's case I don't know which it is, I've never heard of "the guy who's read more about bitcoin than anyone else I know" which is an absurd assertion and should tell you right away he's full of shit. But in either case he's endorsing an attack on Bitcoin, it's really that simple.
Study BIP-119 if you want to know more.
The utter mess that segwit was? We wouldn't even have LN without segwit 🤔. The non-segwit hardfork was the real mess
Also, taproot didn't enable shitcoins on Bitcoin, it just made scaling shitcoins easier 😅
Taproot didn’t do anything to help shitcoins, I don’t know how that became a popular trope about all of this. In fact, despite it not being used, taproot is how you could do that stupid garbage without it bloating the blockchain at all.
The only bit thing with soft forks that gave a lower cost to inscriptions that were fully printed onto the chain was the Segwit *discount,* which wasn’t even really about Segwit itself, but was simply what was done to get a compromise blocksize increase during the shitstorm of a war that had gone on for 4 full years.
Oh wait, are you responding to that moron who thinks CTV has to do with shitcoins? You are super wasting your time there man. Not worth it at all. Just mute
Inscriptions could happen before SegWit, it would have only meant fees would have gone up a little less.
And it would pollute the UTXO set instead of storing it in witness
Yeah none of it really stops or prevents anything. And the witness discount makes sense because having inscriptions there means it can be pruned by anyone who doesn’t want to store that trash.
No one said Segwit allowed spam, it simply made giant blocks full of it possible and added financial incentives to do it.
None of those are true
Both of them are true. 4mb blocks can contain a lot more spam than 1mb blocks and the witness discount made it cheaper
Made it cheaper how?
On the surface it may seem like it but you have to realize this availability of space meant more demand and more fees, until the market reached the amount they would pay reasonably per byte stored
Contain more spam, sure, but also contains more non-spam TXs
The witness discount means that each byte of spam is cheaper than a bit of meaningful transaction.
This was all done when blocks were mostly empty.
and today, stuffing the witness section full of bullshit is cheaper and the amount of witness is unlimited. Spam fest
ah, "more tx" yes so you probably should use bcash because that has massive blocks full of those wonderful transactions.
There will never be enough transaction space in bitcoin no matter what you do. Incentivizing spam is only making it worse.
even today blockspace is cheap for transactions yet we incentivize spam.
The good news is that eventually a single transaction is going to cost $1000 or more and that will probably put an end to spam. The bad news is, nothing will drive "big block" bullshit harder than that.
The bottom line is it doesn't really matter cause those things have been merged in. Taproot and the rest is live and there is no way to get the pee out of the pool.
But we can certainly prevent more exploits from being added in an attempt to "scale bitcoin" which is an absurd idea when you understand why blocks and small and blocktime is long
before segwit spam had to compete with legit transactions for space. The witness discount was core basically saying "ok you can spam, but put it in the witness section so it doesn't bloat the utxo set.
And then taproot took out the witness limit and now our blocks are full of dickbutts.
Personally I'm of the opinion that if spam had to compete for blockspace on an even playing field you would see a lot less of it.
The moral of the story, especially with taproot, is that when you start fucking around with "perfect money" all you can really do is make it less perfect....
If it aint broken, dont fix it.
They are competing for blockspace even with Segwit. Not that it would stop spam.
Please do research.
with a discount, please do some research
normal transactions also get a discount
increased block weight, decreased tx cost for spam, both bad for bitcoin
Taproot brings Bitcoin one step closer to being a shitcoin. It facilitates shitcoins by making Bitcoin into one.
Your OP_CTV is wildly irresponsible. You said yourself core won't "pull the trigger".
Bitcoin is feature complete. But for the sake of compromise, I think you should get 1 new opcode ever 50 years, timer starting now. So get your BIPs together, get them tested, and if you have one you really think will help and be safe, then in 2074 you can softfork it in.
The reality is that Bitcoin biggest vulnerability is people softforking some bullshit in there that ends up with unintended consequences that can be used to harm or destroy the protocol.
Lightning is meaningless without a stable secure and decentralized bitcoin. Honestly I give zero fucks about LN. I care about breaking the global banking cartel with an undebaseable money.
Adding opcodes is nothing more than opportunities for those who would harm bitcoin to do so.
Taproot, by removing any semblance of regulating arbitrary data led to the spam fill bloated blockchain we have today. That threatens the cost of verification, and that is critical to Bitcoin.
Without nearly free cost of verify all you have is a centralized shitcoin running in datacenters, just like the big blockers wanted.
?cid=9b38fe91waw04wn9vgkhyk5lx57nlh0c07qikjh9tncdl4k6&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g
