Author: Buck O Perley 2022-04-20 17:13:19
Published on: 2022-04-20T17:13:19+00:00
The writer of the email expresses interest in the topic of decision making and its importance with regards to Bitcoin. They question the use of hard numbers to evaluate proposals and suggest that it may be arbitrary. They point out that the number of unique spends and use cases necessary for a proposal to be considered sufficiently tested is unclear. The writer also compares the readiness and eagerness to use CTV and Taproot, stating that there were more broken Taproot spends than actual practical uses on a test network before it was fully activated. The writer suggests that defining clear metrics for evaluating proposals would make the lives of key Bitcoin core maintainers easier and remove politics from technical decisions. They also point out that evaluation metrics should be treated differently depending on whether the proposed upgrade is for long-term store of value or medium of exchange. Finally, the writer discusses the need for proof of work to deploy a consensus change and suggests that part of this proof of work is proving that the change will be useful.
Updated on: 2023-06-15T16:52:22.808108+00:00