Author: Antoine Riard 2022-08-09 20:15:35
Published on: 2022-08-09T20:15:35+00:00
A proposal has been made for an open and decentralized process to investigate the problem and solution spaces of covenants. The proposed process would consist of six phases, with each phase discussed individually and spanning over more than one meeting. The consensus reached at the end of each phase would be considered a group consensus, not a global consensus or a "bitcoin community consensus." The results of each phase would be published more widely to get broader community feedback, and detailed evaluations of each proposal would be published by various people so that anyone can go back and understand their thought process. In-person cut-through to resolve misunderstandings and accelerate information synchronization across the stakeholders of a problem space was appreciated, but it is real work for the organizers in terms of time and energy. Finding a common date making consensus, an acceptable host country respecting the travel policy of the widest, seeking event sponsors, ensuring coffees & foods suiting many different diets, collecting topics of discussions, etc. are some of the issues to be dealt with. Even assuming travel support, it can still be a prohibitive cost for a lot of participants.The list of use-cases needs to be defined separately from the features and functionality. It's going to be hard to collect all the constraints and evaluate the risk tolerance of community stakeholders in the face of known and plausible risks. Additional criteria suggested are economic simulations of any feature, privacy advantages, toolchain implementations complexity, evolvability, and composability with future features. The covenant problem space might be solved in an evolutionary way, layer by layer akin to how LN moves forward. Any looping should make proposals more formalized and accurate. We might also have the "easy" covenants moving faster than the "hard" ones across the phases. It's more interesting to seek a lack of consensus in the sense of opposite opinions or blocking arguments. Thumbs up or thumbs down are not necessarily disqualified, but detailed evaluations and thought processes are preferred.The Bitcoin-dev mailing list recently discussed the colored coins' capability, which allows for coins whose validity can be verified on chain. This technology enables users to create digital assets on top of the Bitcoin blockchain, which are then associated with a specific color. The discussion focused on the potential uses and benefits of this technology. It was noted that colored coins could be used for tokenizing real-world assets, such as stocks or commodities, making them easier to trade and transfer. Additionally, colored coins could be used to create new forms of decentralized applications, which could have a significant impact on the future of the blockchain industry.
Updated on: 2023-06-15T23:11:33.094950+00:00