Any concerns about BIP-119?

[btcduster]

I couldn't find any discussion on the forum about this BIP.
I assume that most of you are familiar with the BIP-119 proposal.
I don't think it will win 90% approval of the miners' hash rate.

I don't know if it good or bad for bitcoin a proposal like this, but for sure it will benefit Rubin financially.
According to the suggested Speedy Trial, the neutral votes are counted as 'positive'.
Loosing the fungibility it's not exactly what I envision for bitcoin's future.

[1715482239]

1715482239

[1715482239]

1715482239

[1715482239]

1715482239

[1715482239]

1715482239

[NotATether]

There are better ways to code smart contracts, and I don't want car parts to arrive separately into Bitcoin's network. Hence why I am not amused about BIP119.

A smart contract is better on a separate layer, not baked into the protocol where it can be used as a weapon by unscrupulous nation-states against the political acceptance of Bitcoin as a legal form of money. We see this happen on Ethereum with all its DeFi hacks (though they unfairly pin the blame on all crypto as if everything is based off of ETH, but it's easier for bitcoin to defend itself when its base is not like EH.).

[Sarah Azhari]

I couldn't find any discussion on the forum about this BIP.
I assume that most of you are familiar with the BIP-119 proposal.
I don't think it will win 90% approval of the miners' hash rate.

I don't know if it good or bad for bitcoin a proposal like this, but for sure it will benefit Rubin financially.
According to the suggested Speedy Trial, the neutral votes are counted as 'positive'.
Loosing the fungibility it's not exactly what I envision for bitcoin's future.

If you remember BIP 340, 341, and 342 those called Taproot. that need 3 - 4 years (proposal since 2018) after implemented.

So if 119 is good, it could be implemented in the future. that need time, we don't have to rush, bitcoin is the senior, don't follow what altcoin did.

[DaveF]

I am not sure how to say this, but I think a hybrid setup for smart contracts would be better. I do think that having them as an L2 or other layer would be good. BUT, I also think there should be a way to and I know I am saying this poorly, 'prove on the 1st layer what the 2nd layer contract said' Kind of like when you make an L2 or L3 or whatever layer smart contract you generate some form of a checksum and signature, THAT is then put into the blockchain. This way there is always a way to go back and prove what the original was. If something goes terribly wrong on the other network, you can still prove what was what.

Yeah, I know not the best way of saying this but I think I get my point across.

-Dave

[larry_vw_1955]

There are better ways to code smart contracts, and I don't want car parts to arrive separately into Bitcoin's network. Hence why I am not amused about BIP119.

welcome to bitcoin where they hack things together out of parts. rather than lay out a full blueprint in the very beginning and stick to that specification and never add on new toys. bells and whistles. things that could introduce unforeseen bugs.

A smart contract is better on a separate layer, not baked into the protocol where it can be used as a weapon by unscrupulous nation-states against the political acceptance of Bitcoin as a legal form of money.

well i'm not sure how you arrive at that endpoint from bip-119. not that i'm an expert on it but from what i heard, it lets the receiver impose restrictions on how the funds sent to their address get spent. how do we arrive at a weapon of nation-states from that?

with all that said, this feature of bitcoin seems like something 99% of bitcoin users would never utilize...oh and never need, they gotten along without it just fine all these years, right?

[NotATether]

A smart contract is better on a separate layer, not baked into the protocol where it can be used as a weapon by unscrupulous nation-states against the political acceptance of Bitcoin as a legal form of money.

well i'm not sure how you arrive at that endpoint from bip-119. not that i'm an expert on it but from what i heard, it lets the receiver impose restrictions on how the funds sent to their address get spent. how do we arrive at a weapon of nation-states from that?

Ethereum tried smart contracts on L1 as a complete specification and the end result was its transformation into Uncle Sam's censorship platform, Megatron-style.

If a smart contract framework is to blow up in our faces like that, I would rather it be on a separate protocol isolated from L1, so it can just be disowned like Omni layer that USDT was based on.

I don't exactly welcome shady entities operating on L1. Because if L1 is destroyed then we can't fix it by tearing it down and building it up again.

[larry_vw_1955]

A smart contract is better on a separate layer, not baked into the protocol where it can be used as a weapon by unscrupulous nation-states against the political acceptance of Bitcoin as a legal form of money.

well i'm not sure how you arrive at that endpoint from bip-119. not that i'm an expert on it but from what i heard, it lets the receiver impose restrictions on how the funds sent to their address get spent. how do we arrive at a weapon of nation-states from that?

Ethereum tried smart contracts on L1 as a complete specification and the end result was its transformation into Uncle Sam's censorship platform, Megatron-style.

If a smart contract framework is to blow up in our faces like that, I would rather it be on a separate protocol isolated from L1, so it can just be disowned like Omni layer that USDT was based on.

I don't exactly welcome shady entities operating on L1. Because if L1 is destroyed then we can't fix it by tearing it down and building it up again.

jeremy rubin is a clown. that's enough to not want something that he proposed put in just look at this tweet:
https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin/status/1384689155465089025

worth clarifying: I don't give a single fuck if BIP-119 CTV specifically is activated or not.

I want the functionality, in whatever form (eg noinput), to fix critical gaps in #Bitcoin's armor:

Decentralization.
Scaling.
Self Custody.
Privacy.

let's. fucking. go.

so in other words, this clown doesn't really care if bip-119 is activated or something else is that gives him whatever he's talking about which i thought bitcoin already had.

maybe a smart clown but do this guy even hang out here on btc talk? minus points if no.

[NotATether]

jeremy rubin is a clown. that's enough to not want something that he proposed put in just look at this tweet:
https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin/status/1384689155465089025

worth clarifying: I don't give a single fuck if BIP-119 CTV specifically is activated or not.

I want the functionality, in whatever form (eg noinput), to fix critical gaps in #Bitcoin's armor:

Decentralization.
Scaling.
Self Custody.
Privacy.

let's. fucking. go.

so in other words, this clown doesn't really care if bip-119 is activated or something else is that gives him whatever he's talking about which i thought bitcoin already had.

maybe a smart clown but do this guy even hang out here on btc talk? minus points if no.

That tweet was not very professional of him, it reminds me of Torvalds flipping the bird to NVIDIA reps at a conference.

But I have no clue what he's talking about when he listed all that stuff as places where there are "critical gaps in Bitcoin's armor". Probably you don't know either (Twitter is screwed and doesn't have a search button for a single user's tweets. Let's hope Elon Musk adds that soon )

At least in the case of scaling, there's already the Settlement Pools design I've been working on recently, so we don't need CTV for that.

[larry_vw_1955]

That tweet was not very professional of him, it reminds me of Torvalds flipping the bird to NVIDIA reps at a conference.

But I have no clue what he's talking about when he listed all that stuff as places where there are "critical gaps in Bitcoin's armor". Probably you don't know either (Twitter is screwed and doesn't have a search button for a single user's tweets. Let's hope Elon Musk adds that soon )

At least in the case of scaling, there's already the Settlement Pools design I've been working on recently, so we don't need CTV for that.

with regards to the OP's question about BIP-119 and what people think, I think BIP-119 kind of gets overshadowed a bit by Mr. Rubin and his big personality. he's got his own website where just puts it all out there including his little "Fuck Nazis" side hustle project. I just can't take him seriously. But he is a smart dude.