Replies: 3 comments 5 replies
-
|
Ok let me try this new forum by replying to @average-gary's conceptual comment about CTV (bitcoin/bitcoin#31989 (comment)).
As i pointed out in the thread you link, using CTV for committing to payouts in fact uses more block space. It only allows you to take a bet that future block space will be significantly cheaper as to offset the cost. This does not seem compelling.
Mining firmware is adapted by suppliers to the demand of miners. Changing Bitcoin's consensus to cater to a firmware that can be upgraded on its own is also the wrong way to go. Unless it can be shown there is substantial demand from miners to include payouts in their coinbase transactions, and there is a strong reason why the firmware cannot be upgraded to permit it, this is not a compelling argument. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I really think this kind of discussion belongs on the mailing list, or at least some forum that is not tied to a single implementation, as it's unrelated to any action Bitcoin Core should or shouldn't take. (see #19 (comment)) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I think all individual bitcoin implementations should be having these discussions in their own forums. It wouldn't surprise me to see a soft fork activated by another implementation in the near future. If that does happen, this kind of discussion will definitely relate to an action for this project. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I agree with Pieter, but insofar as this comment was made on Core's Github i felt that it should be addressed. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
You are correct, I'll amend the comment to remove the firmware reference and clarify my block space comment. @sipa per your recommendation, I will move the bulk of my reply to the delving post I linked in the initial comment. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thanks, appreciate the flexibility of hoping in-between fora @average-gary as people are experimenting with what works best for the project. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I appreciate the attempt at experimentation. I also don't think hosting a conceptual discussion in this meta github makes sense. It should be somewhere else. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Can we remove this as off-topic spam too? It's pretty tiresome that the rules are somehow not evenly enforced. Certain people seem to get away with stuff that gets others banned. @pinheadmz PS: It's fine to do heavy handed moderation so long it's consistently enforced. I'm 100% okay with that. Sadly pretty much every time John posts in a PR it's concern trolling without any technical merit. He flat out ignored the pleas for keeping the discussion technical time and time again. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
In an effort to keep pull requests focused on technical discussion, I invite all users and contributors to discuss the pros and cons of the proposed consensus upgrades on this page. Github discussions allow more better multi threading and cross-talk.
Pull Requests
BIP-119 (OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY) (regtest only) #31989
BIP-348 (OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK) (regtest only) #32247
Resources
https://ctv-csfs.com/
https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/op_checksigfromstack/
https://bitcoinops.org/en/topics/op_checktemplateverify/
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions