Author: Prayank 2022-01-04 11:53:32
Published on: 2022-01-04T11:53:32+00:00
The discussion revolves around the proposed implementation of OP_CTV in Bitcoin. The author questions the need for a separate soft fork for OP_CTV if it is ready to go in a few months, instead of being included in the Taproot soft fork. They also argue that there is no potential short term damage from the current proposed soft fork. The author notes that Jeremy Rubin, the primary promoter of OP_CTV, is pushing for an imminent activation of a soft fork containing exclusively OP_CTV through soft signaling. However, the author considers this approach irresponsible and highlights the danger of a contentious soft fork activation attempt. In contrast, the authors of another future soft fork proposal (BIP 118, SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT) are not promoting an imminent activation attempt and are instead building out and testing one of the speculated use cases, eltoo payment channels. The author argues that similar work has not been done for any of the speculated use cases of OP_CTV. The author also mentions Sapio as a potentially helpful tool for Bitcoin developers.The author acknowledges that there is skepticism towards the OP_CTV proposal, citing a long list of speculated use cases that mean nothing on their own. However, the author believes that the proposal will be beneficial to Bitcoin projects and improve privacy, security, decentralization, and demand for block space. The author feels that the top priority should be to bring attention to the danger of stumbling into an attempted contentious soft fork activation attempt. Finally, the author highlights the need to resist rushing the implementation of covenants on Bitcoin through the back door so soon after the Taproot activation. They note that there is barely any existing research on the topic and that attempting to rush it through could be dangerous.
Updated on: 2023-06-15T04:18:40.840492+00:00