Post ASPyVoRMYPMwDHma48 by waxwing@x0f.org
 (DIR) More posts by waxwing@x0f.org
 (DIR) Post #ASPyVh4PxJr7M5zepU by waxwing@x0f.org
       2023-02-04T13:45:06Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       New principle:The only(?) reason to support non-trivial consensus changes in Bitcoin, from now on, is if it supports the ability to create off-chain protocols for payments, such that we will need far less consensus changes in the future.(I did a discussion panel on @nvk 's podcast earlier, just been released, made me think about it again ... in that discussion we didn't talk enough about the off-chain part imo).https://bitcoin.review/podcast/episode-21/#bitcoin
       
 (DIR) Post #ASPyVoRMYPMwDHma48 by waxwing@x0f.org
       2023-02-04T13:48:37Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       It's just a thought, but it's interesting - for example it might be a justification to do a covenants soft fork (and maybe then people would understand the motivation better, I don't like focusing on stuff like vaults (yeah super useful but that's somehow not "central" enough) or congestion control.Having a guiding principle like this for any future changes might be good (especially with that reflexive part - supporting *less* future changes).
       
 (DIR) Post #ASPyVuwQNpmSNMMTJY by waxwing@x0f.org
       2023-02-04T13:57:27Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       A much more "out-there" example:a single bilinear pairings operation (like, check e(a,b) =? e(c,d)) could enable a huge amount of "lift the hard work off chain" (think, zk rollups concept, but def. not limited to that). Yeah I know this is pie in the sky for now, given it's entirely different crypto, *and* it's also very expensive, and in verification (so impacts all nodes). But even so, would love to have it investigated. It fits the above principle.