CTV + CSFS: a letter to the technical bitcoin community from 43 engineers
Full text at ctv-csfs.com
Discussion
Vaults seem like a superpower for self custody fingers crossed this is seriously considered.
Great letter. I think I’m on board. While I understand the intent of this letter is a call to action and so should be short and concise, I am curious what are the potential risks or drawbacks of CTV and CSFS?
Verrrrry worth looking at. In my opinion CTV is no risk and all upside (while all other solutions for covenants I have seen have some serious risks). The other one, I have not researched yet, gonna do that today.
nostr:nprofile1qqstnem9g6aqv3tw6vqaneftcj06frns56lj9q470gdww228vysz8hqpzdmhxue69uhkzmr8duh82arcduhx7mn9qy2hwumn8ghj7etyv4hzumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgqgdwaehxw309ahx7uewd3hkcam28zl has some good info about OP_CTV and I hope he'll be doing a lot more to help educate people about these proposed upgrades.
Let’s go
These people can probably write 100 different letters to upgrade bitcoin signed by 100 different engineers/ retarded devs but not sure if 80IQ plebs will buy into any of this stuff until following things are done
Short Term: -
- I WAA GOING TO SAY AVOID MERGING THE PR REMOVING OP_RETURN LIMIT (BUT IT SEEMS COMMIE CORE DEVS ALREADY MERGED THIS PR)
- FIX THE FILTERS
Long Term: -
- GET RID OF COMMIE CORE DEVS FROM SHITCOIN CORE (AKA MALWARE) TO MAKE IT BITCOIN CORE AGAIN...!!!
These so-called intellectuals need to work with NODERUNNERS otherwise things will continue to get worse when it comes to upgrading the bitcoin.
BITCOIN IS NOT FIAT CLOWN WORLD...!!!
#RunKnots
#DitchCore
nostr:nprofile1qqs0zuj4s6jq9sr2ajqc69rc53d25rwpd3afcjrfm97r2qek69hcuscpr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezucnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmp0qy2hwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytn00p68ytnyv4mz7qgawaehxw309aex2mrp0yhx6at5d9h8jampd3kx2apwvdhk6tcgjgr05, since you are not among the signers I have to ask, what do you think about this activation?
Instead of writing retarded letters to retarded devs - some of whom allegedly don’t even run their own full nodes - you’d better start appealing to pleb node runners if you hope to follow through with your proposal. A few pieces of advice for your next letter, if you aim for it to be less retarded:
1. Read the room when you post it. Given the fuckery of shitcoin Core, maybe now’s not the best time.
2. Calling Bitcoin a “scarce, censorship-resistant store of value” instead of “money” implies one of two things: you’re either economically illiterate or a bad actor pushing a narrative.
3. Acting arrogant by dismissing non-technical plebs from the conversation will make it even harder to gather consensus for your upgrade.
GFY 😂
Dude. This is the one good idea they've had recently. They're trying to remain relevant.
Need more experts to sign.
Do you mean "experts" or experts? Lol
I think it's really important that we have an honest debate among people who actually understand a fair amount of this and have an interest to understand. That is, a lot of real experts. If they're just trying to rush signatures though, well, that's similar to the way the Constitution was rushed, but unlike that noise, we can opt out on the individual level by not running that version of the software, and refusing to acknowledge a consensus change later down the line if we think it's wrong.
I'm sure it would be good to get some expert opinions on it. However the core Devs have lost all credibility.
Yup.
nostr:nprofile1qqstnem9g6aqv3tw6vqaneftcj06frns56lj9q470gdww228vysz8hqpzdmhxue69uhkzmr8duh82arcduhx7mn9qy2hwumn8ghj7etyv4hzumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgqgdwaehxw309ahx7uewd3hkcam28zl is my go-to for summaries on technicals and tradeoffs. The leading Core devs are dangerous as evidenced by their refusal to carry out arguments in good faith, and their philosophical illiteracy as regards incentives and human interaction.
I like to try to synthesize an understanding from lots of different perspectives though, and of course come to my own conclusions every step along the way via my own logic. Keeps my informed perspective decentralized itself haha!
I'm only impressed when at least 44 experts sign a letter. That's my cutoff.
My number was 42
Trust the Experts ™
Make sure to take all your boosters
You can just choose to not run the software
"You can just do things!" Well, not really. Core has a tremendous amount of latent power for at least two reasons:
(i) every business has basically hardcoded the use of that implementation with levels of risk aversion surpassing "never got fired for buying IBM," creating an amazing de facto monopoly on economic nodes, and
(ii) bitcoin is so complicated tha
t any non-developer inherently must delegate to some technical authority they trust, and Core winds up (for most sane people) being the target of that delegation.
This is a tremendous amount of sticky power. To not acknowledge that is naive.
Yes, in theory a large part of the ecosystem could decide to run an alternate implementation - but the switching/coordination/incidental-risk costs there are huge. It would take a 5-10x reward:risk proposition for most businesses to switch.
And meanwhile, the Core line is so often "well running another implementation would be dangerous! think of the possible consensus incompatibilities!" Convenient.
This single chokepoint is going to be a big problem for bitcoin, even if the filters issue isn't per se an epitome of it."
You don't have to upgrade core to one that includes CTV+CSFS, plenty of people run pre segwit nodes still.
Or you can learn what these things are for yourself and see if you agree.
Do you worry if today's controversial OP_RETURN PR merger is going to negatively affect the push to enable CTV + CSFS?
No, because it wasn’t controversial outside of a narrow band of people looking to create a wedge in order to promote alternative implementations to core or do marketing for Ocean.
“narrow band of people”
How do you measure that band that you call it "narrow"? You don't know if many of node runners will ever express themselves except by choosing what to run and not say a word. They just run what they value is best for them not for spammers.
It’s narrow economically as measured by businesses running knots, narrow by technical community who best understand the nuance of the code, and narrow by a very vocal minority circular boosting each others messaging. Also would wager someone is sybiling the network right now to over represent knots adoption across the network.
CTV has been discussed quite a bit and I'm all for it but I haven't heard much about CSFS. Why are they being put together?
Hırsız ve namussuz bir adamım. Terfiyi bile daire başkanını sikerek aldım