You’ll recall that when I was busy, i politely thanked you for your message and let you know that I would reply when I could.
Perhaps you forgot saying “I already left this convo and don’t have time to read all that…” But you always intended to reply? Ok, sure.
Repeating “Sapio doesn’t change anything” is weak sauce — baseless contradiction, no logic, no evidence, just nothing.
I’ve quoted the author of OP_CTV extensively and he clearly contradicts you. I was hoping you would respond with something coherent so I might be able to learn, if I was missing something.
Unfortunately so true.
Sapio runs logic on-chain but BitVM is currently designed to run logic off-chain. You can’t equate them.
Big difference in terms of risk to centralizing MEV, don’t you think?
It will be interesting to see how BitVM develops though.
You’re not going to respond? Once I brought receipts and then you suddenly “didn’t have the time”? Disappointed. I thought we cared about what’s best for bitcoin rather than our established positions.
I haven’t looked at this in depth but I’ve always thought that the combination of Liquid + Lightning allows anon bitcoin payments. Do you know if this isn’t true?
“CTV doesn’t “enable smart contracts” in some elaborate way that isn’t already possible.”
Have you heard of Sapio?
https://btctranscripts.com/vr-bitcoin/2020-07-11-jeremy-rubin-sapio-101/
Hey Guy, did you fall down the Sapio rabbit hole as I did? Pretty interesting (and disturbing) stuff!
Anyway, unless I’m missing something, it seems that you were misled on CTV’s capabilities.
You said: “CTV doesn’t “enable smart contracts” in some elaborate way that isn’t already possible…”
Your statement is not true … straight from Jeremy Rubin himself:
“When we write a program in Sapio, we are designing an arbitrary state machine that can run any program.”
…and…
“As such, Sapio is a very powerful framework for designing Bitcoin smart contracts […].”
So CTV does provide a NEW powerful framework that allows ARBITRARY programs, which aren’t possible today.
Jeremy even says at one point that you can write options contracts in Sapio. This confirms what I said about financial trading.
Jeremy also says clearly that Sapio is ONLY POSSIBLE with CTV:
“CTV makes all this stuff really possible and without it it is severely limited in what contexts you’d want to be able to use it. …
Getting CTV adopted is really instrumental to making this vision that I showed you actually work.”
So, to recap:
You’ve said repeatedly that CTV was only providing capabilities that we have already.
You said that CTV doesn’t provide “elaborate” new smart contract capabilities.
You now have strong evidence that both of these statements are not true.
Do you understand now why my earlier framing was accurate? If you’re still fuzzy on anything please let me know.
Hoping you also understand better why I challenge these attempts to quickly change bitcoin’s core protocol.
Of course I would love to have channel factories capable of opening a million lightning channels at once. But not if there is any risk to bitcoin.
The problem is that none of us really know what OP_CTV can do. It seems this discussion is a perfect case in point. You’re super smart, incredibly well read, spending most of your time in this space, but still under the belief that OP_CTV just provides better hashing, stuff we already have.
Nobody understands all the ways it can be abused, so nobody really understands what the risk to bitcoin really is.
You think we need channel factories? Great! The dev community should explore how to add that without any “side effects”. We absolutely need vaults. Hopefully they can figure out how to get that done without side effects too.
But adding arbitrary programs to the core protocol which could harm decentralization? No freaking way. We’ve seen that horror story play out on crypto blockchains.
I was shocked to learn from the book Broken Money how France, to this day, continues to subjugate and impoverish poor African countries through the CFA franc.
And when anyone seeks monetary independence and opposes the franc, they are assassinated.
I wonder how many French know that their country steals from poor Africans?
The thesis of the book The Sovereign Individual, playing out as we watch.
The guy, who spends his time bringing shitcoins to Bitcoin, is advocating for op_cat.
No kidding. I guess that’s the quick TL;DR on why it’s a terrible idea. 
The plot thickens…
Macron lured Durov to France on the pretext of having dinner? 
Interesting research paper shows the potential link between the covid vax and many diseases, including cancer.
Honestly, don’t know what I want to see more. People not complying with that stupid diktat or people moving over here. 🤔😀
Our need to protect the earth stems from our need to protect our children and grandchildren.
Environmentalists have lost the plot. Perhaps because they lost focus on family.
As a result, they miss sight of the true problems: toxins in our air, food, and water. They virtue signal about carbon while throwing toxins into our environment.
Environmentalism should be about leaving a beautiful legacy for our family.
👀 interesting. Very disruptive to big tech if this is allowed to stand. But let’s see what happens on appeal. nostr:note1z65u3annl9xey0aelyjehewez678qylgvz083uaaa0yhmdlp2s5spk3j33
Quick summary in case you’re wondering what this debate is all about.
Right now, nostr is very centralized. Potentially 90% or more of us are connected to a few massive relays.
These relays are an easy target for govts, with the possibility that their operators could be punished. This is obviously not good for free speech.
In this video, Will is talking about an “outbox” model. Nostr devs believe that moving to an inbox / outbox model will make nostr decentralized.
Right now, your app is “dumb”. It just uses the relays you’ve set. The inbox / outbox model will make your nostr app smarter. For example, your app may know which relays are used by your followers. Your app will then send your post to the relays that they use.
Likewise, to download messages from people you follow, your app will check first on your relays (they may have sent it to you) and/or your app can also check on their home relay.
This is definitely a theoretical improvement. Some remaining issues though:
1. How will apps know the best relays for the people you follow and for each of your followers? If apps need to ask the central relays, then nostr might stay centralized.
2. The apps will need to actively discourage the large relays and this will worsen the UX by making everything slower. Users may not like it and may just use apps that only use the large central relays.
3. Right now, the apps just check a few relays. This makes it easy on apps. With the new system, apps won’t know where messages are so they will need to check a lot more. This increases the load on both relays and apps. We don’t yet know how well this will work. nostr:note1dqk63v3nrvtkhjye29t7zzwwrrlxqh6tvld4x00jvlm2ye55zmkqmumahc
“CTV doesn’t “enable smart contracts” in some elaborate way that isn’t already possible.”
Have you heard of Sapio?
https://btctranscripts.com/vr-bitcoin/2020-07-11-jeremy-rubin-sapio-101/
Ok, could you please tell me which statements you disagree with so we can start from there:
1. Centralizing MEV is bad
2. Out of band payment to miners to enter private mempool can create centralizing MEV
3. Speculators may pay miners out of band fees if they can receive a financial advantage.
4. Trading financial instruments creates opportunities for financial advantage if you can execute your transaction quicker than others.
5. Op_CTV enables smart contracts that could be used to create and trade financial contacts, possibly even creating a Uniswap-like DEX.
6. There is a risk that op_ctv could create centralizing MEV
One of my top fav books nostr:note1cj9pwdr8kuw2rp9fj3m2c24h56ttuv4zcd4wh09efmjn8cd4zzsqpylkfk