Nostr Web Client

😂 so funny! You’re still pretending that I didn’t send you direct quotes from Peter and Matt! We all know why you ignore them. You’re not capable of responding. You were so overconfident and now you’re just embarrassed.

Here, I’ll send them again so everyone following you can see you’re pretending not to see them.

Here is Peter admitting that both CAT and CTV add risks. He says:

“Unlike OP_CAT, CTV doesn’t appear to raise much risk of unintended consequences beyond encouraging out-of-band fee payments in certain cases. This isn’t ideal.”

The risk that Peter identified for CTV is “encouraging out of band fee payments”.

https://petertodd.org/2024/covenant-dependent-layer-2-review

Here’s Matt Corallo explaining why these can motivate miner centralization:

https://x.com/TheBlueMatt/status/1780558009841643833

Matt argues that these payments to miners are a risk because they encourage centralization:

“More recently, out of band payments to miners have become popular again, allowing individuals to pay large pools for the inclusion of their transaction(s) using payments outside of the normal bitcoin transaction fee. This can create substantial MEVil [centralization MEV risk] […]”

There you go! You can keep ignoring them but we all know that I sent them and you couldn’t respond.

🫳 🎤

Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE 1y ago 💬 1

The only one that should be embarrassed is you basing all of your information solely on podcast interviews.

I suggest you do better and do some actual research on utxos.org/uses since you clearly never even heard of the site while attempting to claim that CTV can cause miner centralization.

Matt didn't write CTV and is wrong.

Peter didn't write CTV and is wrong.

If you don't understand that out of band payments is not a bad thing because it's the same as an LN payment then you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe you should read some foundation articles on my website bitcoindev.org.

The only one that is ignoring anything is you, best of luck on your "research" by doing nothing but listening to podcasts, the rest of us have work to do.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

techfeudalist 1y ago 💬 1

😂 podcast? Which one of Peter’s or Matt’s written articles is the podcast?

Not sure what “podcast” you heard there, but did those voices in your head tell you that Peter and Matt were wrong?

You know, telling me “the voices said so”, would actually be more evidence and logic than what you presented!

I learned a lot here. Peter, Matt and everyone are wrong. But only you know why but you can’t explain. But the answer is somewhere on your website but you’re too busy to tell me what it is. 😂😂

I’m sad that you became so busy when you couldn’t articulate an answer. I was hoping you were going to try and explain why Peter and Matt were wrong. Oh well. 🤷‍♂️

Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE 1y ago 💬 1

I told you the answer, you simply don't believe me. You've got alot more research to do. Best of luck.

techfeudalist 1y ago 💬 1

Oh, you’re not busy anymore! Hope you had the time to read the thread with Matt Black.

Correction: you told me your opinion and couldn’t provide any logic or evidence. Everyone can see you didn’t answer anything. Btw, you know that only midwits believe strongly in something they can’t defend, right? Must have been a blow to your ego to discover you had nothing.

I know, I know. The answer is just that Peter Todd, Matt Corallo, everyone is wrong. But why? …And you can’t explain. 🤡😂

It’s funny how you keep responding to me with nothing. I must be living rent free in there.

Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE 1y ago 💬 1

Apologies I can't find time to reply to lazy douchebags who'd rather save face with insults and emojis than do any actual research.

You've been wrong about several points in this discussion and when you're wrong you brush over them and move on to the next goal post.

I've already told you that CTV doesn't cause MEV, out of band payments are no diff than LN payments, and even Peter Todd says "It’s fair to say that CTV has the broadest support among the technical community of any covenant opcode proposal because of its relative simplicity and wide range of use-cases."

Best of luck with more podcast "research" of yours.

techfeudalist 1y ago

Hey, you read Peter’s paper! Nice. You finally figured out that it wasn’t a podcast. 👍

Notice that Peter didn’t say “because it’s risk free”. Or maybe you didn’t? You got distracted on his comment regarding use cases. We weren’t even talking about that. 🤷‍♂️

Ah, you’re busy now. Still waiting for you to explain why Peter is wrong about the risk. I guess I’m going to be here a long time. 😴

PS. Remember, those who feel strongly about something they can’t defend…