By Bitcoin Magasin - 2 år sedan - Lästid: 4 minuter
Är Speedy Trial det bästa sättet att förändra Bitcoin?
BIP119, which adds limited covenants to Bitcoin, is the current conversation and many people question if Speedy Trial for Taproot was a good precedent.
Nedan är ett direkt utdrag av Marty's Bent Utgåva #1198: "OP_CTV och grov konsensus" Anmäl dig till nyhetsbrevet här.
(Källa) (Källa) (Källa)As I'm sure some of you are aware of by now, there is a heated debate happening amongst Bitcoin developers and users alike about OP_CTV, a subject vi började täcka here at the Bent in December 2019. OP_CTV, if enabled, would bring back to life an op code (OP_NOP4) with added restrictions. This would allow users to create complex covenants on Bitcoin that would enable more complex preconfigured transactions and could improve the user experience around security and batching a large number of transactions.
I think these are functionalities that would add utility to many bitcoin users, particularly larger economic actors who hold a lot of bitcoin that needs to have the highest degree of security as is humanly possible and those who send a lot of bitcoin to a large number of users on a daily basis.
With that being said, the attempt to get OP_CTV merged into Bitcoin Core has highlighted the murky nature of rough consensus within a distributed peer-to-peer system. The conversation around OP_CTV is forcing people to ask (myself included) questions like; is this completely necessary right now? Has there been enough discussion and review of the proposal? If so and it is deemed worthy, how should it be activated on the Bitcoin nätverk?
After having spoken to a few developers who are familiar with both Bitcoin Core and the needs of some of the larger custodians it does seem that OP_CTV would be beneficial for many players in the space. The ability to leverage these types of covenants would expand the design space of the solutions they can offer customers because they have better security guarantees when moving large amounts of bitcoin. (I am using security in this context to mean "prevent human-error from leading to a loss of funds".) I think OP_CTV would get used if it were activated.
Another variable that has been brought to light with the debate around OP_CTV activation (or refusal) is that the lead maintainers of Bitcoin Core, who have what's known as "commit access" and are in charge of actually hitting the buttons that merges code into Bitcoin Core, do not seem to want any part in suggesting whether or not something should or should not be merged and how that should or should not happen. They seem to be adopting an increasingly neutral posture so that they don't come off as partial and can be viewed as biased controllers of the codebase. This seems to be evident by their lack of willingness to provide Jeremy Rubin, the developer behind OP_CTV, with an answer to his question, "How do I go about getting this merged into Bitcoin Core?" I actually view this as a positive. It should be hard to change bitcoin and those who have the keys to the machine that allows you to change the most commonly used client should be as impartial as humanly possible.
På grund av vägran att ge ett rakt svar till Jeremy när det gäller en aktiveringsväg, har han tagit på sig att skapa sin egen klient som har OP_CTV aktiverad och ger användarna en väg genom vilken de kan försöka göra OP_CTV officiell genom att delta i en annan User Activated Soft Fork (UASF) som använder sig av Speedy Trial-metoden för aktivering. Även om jag förstår Jeremys push för att få OP_CTV aktiverad, är jag inte ett stort fan av att trycka en annan mjukgaffel via Snabb rättegång. In retrospect, it seems that it was a bad precedent that was set when taproot was activated. I fear that normalizing a rapid succession of soft forks via Speedy Trial is a slippery slope that could lead to a lot of unnecessary changes in the future that could cause a degradation of the integrity of the bitcoin nätverk.
Även om det finns många som förmodligen skulle använda OP_CTV om det aktiverades i morgon, verkar det inte vara ett akut behov för tillfället. Jag är för ett mer grundligt samtal och debatt om fördelarna med funktionen och de prejudikat som vi skapar via dess aktivering, om det skulle hända. Jag gillar idén med OP_CTV men tycker absolut inte att det är en fabrikat- eller brytfunktion för tillfället.
Jag är för grumliga, grova konsensuskörningsprotokollförändringar över en väldefinierad process som potentiellt skulle kunna angripas socialt. Det ska bli intressant att se när och hur den här debatten avgörs. En sak är säker, jag är glad att OP_CTV är här för att föra fram dessa tuffa men nödvändiga samtal kring konsensus. Det är väldigt viktiga diskussioner att föra.
Ursprunglig källa: Bitcoin magazine