--- Log opened Wed Feb 09 00:00:54 2022
00:17 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@user/AaronvanW] has joined ##ctv-bip-review
00:50 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@user/AaronvanW] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
01:11 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@user/AaronvanW] has joined ##ctv-bip-review
02:30 < michaelfolkson> My 2 cents. Liquid is a good staging ground for experimentation. But so is the default signet or a custom signet. Or an alternative sidechain to Liquid. I certainly don't think Liquid should be the only way you can get soft fork changes considered for Bitcoin mainnet.
02:33 < michaelfolkson> But apparently whatever CTV experimentation there has been so far has been on regtest. That is clearly not the best staging ground. No one can see how people are using CTV (if indeed they are) if people stick to regtest
02:35 < michaelfolkson> Plus you never test the broadcasting, propagation, DoS vectors, P2P, RBF, policy etc stuff if you stick to regtest
02:37 < michaelfolkson> But with experimentation and testing you definitely want room for different approaches. Liquid has taken a certain approach with enabling a basket of opcodes. A signet or an alternative sidechain could take a different approach (just CTV or CTV with other opcodes)
02:54 < michaelfolkson> You can get into a mess on a single signet if people have differing views on which opcodes should or shouldn't be enabled. Blowing up a signet is fine. Ideally we'd avoid blowing up mainnet
02:54 < michaelfolkson> https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/98642/can-we-experiment-on-signet-with-multiple-proposed-soft-forks-whilst-maintaining
13:52 -!- joostjgr [~joostjgr@2a02-a450-1546-1-d4cd-a5a2-7582-2bae.fixed6.kpn.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
14:56 -!- AaronvanW [~AaronvanW@user/AaronvanW] has quit [Quit: Leaving...]
--- Log closed Thu Feb 10 00:00:55 2022