0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nerd2ninja 14 May \ parent \ on: Lyn Alden On Scaling bitcoin
That's the only concern he raised. The entirety of what you sent me was Maxwell debunking FUD about perpetual KYC via CTV except for this one blurb where he says he doesn't like it and doesn't specify why.
And when asked, his only response was
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/uim560/comment/i7dhfpb/
In what conceivable way is this rushing anything? Do you know what inquisition net is? Its a test network to test and build with proposed op_codes. Its has nothing to do with mainline activation. A better example would have been O'Beirne publishing MASF code with no activation date.
So when Maxwell says its being pushed through in an ill advised way perhaps he would be referring to things like that.
You're not talking to O'Beirne or Folkson for that matter though, you're talking to me and I think the educational awareness campaign for node runners to grok what CTV (as part of LNHance) implications and applications are will likely take 5 years. I'm not rushing.
And so then what you're talking about usecases? That's why you bring up fees and privacy and all that right? All of this to finally get to that point eh. Would have loved to start there.
So John Law wrote this paper on scaling lightning using covenants https://github.com/JohnLaw2/ln-scaling-covenants
This method for scaling lightning involves a multi-party channel giving timeout trees to users who are 99% of the time offline. Please read the paper.
This is not about making fees cheaper, this is about dealing with high fees in a sane way.
It should not come as a surprise to you to read me telling you that Bitcoin is also my only savings plan. I'm not rushing anything. I just think its a good BIP.
Welp that's a personal problem lmao. Not all of us are paying for trash by default lmao.
Oh I'm sorry to give you that response, but really I don't have a compelling argument for what you should do if you're forced to pay for something. Maybe the people delivering food in this supply chain scenario can also take your trash to the dumpster or something idk lmao.
The price of throwing stuff away is made up for with its convenience, but here's the bigger idea for you.
Bitcoiners can't make disposables.
Bitcoiners don't own factories in China...(except for the ASIC producers...I feel like some of these things can change, but for right now hang in there with me)
If we can make reusables as cost effective and convenient as trash, then that's one less dependency on the FIAT economy that the Bitcoin economy would need to pull from. We price it all in Bitcoin, and then that becomes a dependency that the FIAT economy has on Bitcoin.
Sure, the FIAT economy could replicate it, but would they be willing to? Their entire supply chain and manufacturing process works a certain way and changing it would take time, maybe enough time for people to start getting used to and normalizing Bitcoin payments.
Just a thought. Industrial washers do exist (https://www.webstaurantstore.com/49791/commercial-dishwashers.html) if the flow goes from house to washer to producer to consumer and back again, maybe that becomes more convenient and more cost effective than trash (I haven't done the math though)
While some person is there picking up your bottles, they might as well deliver as well. Cram as many things for every person along the chain to do and as many markets as possible for them to serve and we would really entrench ourselves.
More CISA nuance
https://cisaresearch.org/
Sorry, when I said "our system" I meant the banking system, which you're right is not our system, but a government entity or any modern business would not have an issue with it at all.
Here's something to consider. Why do we have a merkle tree secured by hash cash? One of the reasons is so that there is no transaction reversibility. If a government database (or more likely an exchange or other custodian database) is the transaction state, is the authority on whether a tx gets reversed or not, (their signature is required afterall), and your custodian trusts this other custodian not to sign a second tx made by you (as they all do these days), your custodian (which I say custodian because this is a 2 of 2 multi-sig and you don't have enough signatures to spend and you don't have unilateral exit) could sign the unconfirmed on the utxo to allow you to spend it elsewhere.
Here's this put in more simple terms how I could put it on my own.
"What Is A Child Transaction In The Bitcoin Network?
A child transaction can be best understood in relation to its parent transaction. In the Bitcoin network, transactions are linked together in a chain-like structure called a blockchain. When a parent transaction occurs, it creates an unspent output that can be used as an input for subsequent transactions.
These subsequent transactions that spend these unspent outputs are referred to as child transactions."
So, when you receive a tx that is only signed by one signature, your wallet will query the government's node, see the tx in their custom mempool, and it will say its confirmed. Still in the mempool, the wallet will say its confirmed. Its not possible to reverse this tx, because the government mempool won't allow it to be replaced and because it doesn't have the governments signature, its not consensus valid to be mined yet.
(In both a CTV perpetual KYC scheme and this multi-sig perpetual KYC scheme, you'd need a wallet that even complies with this scheme)
In order to even have a CTV address, you need to generate one on your device, the same way you have to generate a taproot address.
You may remember me saying that.
So then your wallet would sign the child transaction of that tx and so and and so forth until the government signer wakes up and signs all of them at once and broadcasts that to be mined.
(p.s. I had to double check with some people I know that you could sign a child transaction of a multi-sig utxo before its parent is fully signed lol)
TBH, it might be easier to PCAP and point to your own DNS to trick it into thinking your server is ACINQ lol (There's probably a lightning node URI you gotta change in there though)
Well, you're saying settings and I'm saying code
This is the code. You gotta dig through it, find where it opens a channel with ACINQ, and point at yourself instead.
You should mention that the mobile app Phoenix, is FOSS and so you can fork it and point it to this said phoenixd instance
First, the covenant model requires only a single signature every two weeks. That’s 26 signatures per year. In contrast, the cosigner model requires to co-sign every single transaction, which could be millions per year if there are thousands of institutions.
CISA (cross input signature aggregation). We have it in some form with musig2, but musig2 by itself isn't the full CISA of the future.
As far as the time argument goes, don't you know that our system relies on credit. If you're just waiting on the government sign off, then any business would just credit you until the settlement can go through. Since all your PSBTs would be sent to the government, the risk of a full RBF tx is nil as the government would apply a first seen first signed policy.
Anyway, that's all much more complicated than what governments and businesses are doing today, which is just not letting you withdraw unless you're sending to another whitelisted service.
With current proposals? Do you mean the 3 proposals in LNHance?
Yeah its very current. Jeremy (the BIP author) sucks and he did try to push it through without the whole getting node runners to understand what's going on and why its wanted thing. I'd be interested to hear why Greg Maxwell thought it was a poor proposal though. If its because of the BIP author, well can we talk about it without the BIP author? lol.
This is FUD that I've already dealt with
"Perpetually KYC'd coins using Multi-sig" its simpler, cheaper and exists in Bitcoin today.
Not only that, but custodians can just say you own Bitcoin in their account and leave it at that. "No withdrawl policy" We have shown that our resilience against such a policy typically results in the exchange allowing withdraws (no one buys from them if they don't)
In order to even have a CTV address, you need to generate one on your device, the same way you have to generate a taproot address.
This is the kind of FUD the educational push for LNHance will need to deal with for the next 5 years, but I'm strapped in for it because the alternative is to give up and that's not my style.
People who are saying "lets not rush things" and "those are just niche programmers" are asleep at the wheel. We need an L1 change to develop L2 any further and we've been discussing CTV for at least a year now (or LNHance which includes two more BIPs) and I anticipate the educational push for it to last maybe 5 years.
We aren't rushing things. If it seems like we're rushing things, its because you're reacting to educational campaigns to bring awareness to node runners and misinterpreting that educational content as a "rush"
The nix Bitcoin repo had a solution to keeping secrets out of the configuration file (I think they're pointed to elsewhere) but basically no different from git pushing your configuration to github. The difference would be that your config is signed by your nsec.