pull down to refresh
Perhaps we can agree on that? We rely on L1 btc just like we rely on TCP.
Yes!!! We 100% rely on L1. Which is why that is the thing you spend 99% of your time on. Because if you fuck that up your protocol is a disaster!
And because we rely on it, we test it, we verify it. It is the single point of failure and it must never ever break - if we're not scammers. And that's why L1 script integrity and the correctness of our integration with it is the most important thing for anyone that relies on it. (i.e. is actually using Bitcoin)
I'm sorry to appear and be unhappy with your choice of words - like I said elsewhere too, I am 100% with the conclusion that people should stop proposing addenda to the protocol. The only 2 proposals I was comfortable with was (a) PQC proposals in general (not picking a finalist yet) because it is preventive, and (b) GSR before it went GSR&E (ðŸ˜), because that was a workable restorative proposal that could provide a better baseline than we have today. I guess I am down to 1 now - which sucks fwiw.
In the end, I don't need any new protocol or even cryptography tho. What I need is 6 months of runway so that I can bring the things Bitcoiners need, to Bitcoiners. There's a lot of bridging to be had - I know because I have to buy stupid fiat every time I want something specific.
By irrelevant I don't mean "those rules don't exist". I mean that they are a background fact which doesn't change.
Thus how my L2 plugs into L1 (and I couldn't agree more with your point that how that plug-in works is absolutely crucial - i.e. what are its trust assumptions) is something one designs, implements and then relies on.
Perhaps we can agree on that? We rely on L1 btc just like we rely on TCP. I only mean by "irrelevant" that we no longer think about something, so it's not part of an argument. It may be more accurate to say something like "arguing about L1 is irrelevant" and not "L1 is irrelevant", which in a literal sense, is obviously false.
So if that's the case, I can accept your unhappiness with my choice of words, though I like to think (as people often do!) "it's obvious what I meant!".
There is a deeper point here about "relying on", too: the 'stagnation' of L1 is a benefit: it lets satellite systems rely on it. So yeah I am one of those weird people who think ossification is good :) The jury's out on whether we've already ossified or not (see e.g. quantum).