Re: [bitcoin-dev] User Resisted Soft Fork for CTV

From: Corey Haddad <corey3@gmail•com>
To: Zac Greenwood <zachgrw@gmail•com>,
	 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
	<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] User Resisted Soft Fork for CTV
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 11:40:19 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAK_HAC8UrPSDoYU-b4KrZqGF3ndWqobPu2y_ddmCvTqNsbifBw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJ4-pEADrHf_YR5ZBfJW+eefKrp1iEj4wAi72UrwRSi9gaVP+w@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2388 bytes --]

>*A change that increases the number of use cases of Bitcoin affects all
users and is *not* non-invasive. More use cases means more blockchain usage
which increases the price of a transaction for *everyone*.*

This manages to be both incorrect and philosophically opposed to what
defines success of the project . Neither the number of ways that people
figure out how to innovatively harness Bitcoin's existing capabilities, nor
the number or complexity of any optional transaction types that the Bitcoin
protocol supports have any bearing on transaction fees. Demand for
blockspace from transactions, which is just plain *use* - and not *use
cases* - is what could drive up transaction fees.

On the philosophical level, as designers of the system, we all hope and
work to make Bitcoin so useful, appealing, and secure that there is massive
demand for blockspace, even in the face of high transaction fees. As an
individual thinking only of their next on-chain transaction, it is
understandable that one might hope for low fees and partially-filled
blocks. Longer term, the health of the system can both be measured by and
itself depends on high transaction demand and fee pressure.

If you were trying to argue that CTV is invasive because it may increase
transaction demand and therefore cost users more fees, that is 1) an
endorsement of CTV's desirability and 2) reveals that you consider any
increased free-market competition (i.e. more demand) to be "invasive".

*>I like the maxim of Peter Todd: any change of Bitcoin must benefit *all*
users. *

As for Peter Todd's "any change of Bitcoin must benefit *all* users", that
is absolutely a reasonable thing to consider. However, in order to make
practical use of that maxim, we must adopt in our minds a *generic*, or
"model user", and then replicate them so that we may meaningfully
understand a least a proxy for "all users". In reality, there will always
be someone (and at this point, probably a "user" too)  who wouldn't benefit
from a change, or at least think they won't. Some users of Bitcoin may even
want Bitcoin to fail, so we cannot afford assume that people have alignment
of goals or vision just by virtue of being a 'user'.

Corey

> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3220 bytes --]