theonevortex
Vortex | CTV | LNHANCE

I used to work for the corporations. Now I work for Bitcoin. Bitcoin Is. And that is enough. maintainer https://bitcoindev.org

Public Key

npub1q5un2zq6d93ygesrg3rwmgehfkg9v5kah7pp0jy8pqvzdparxpnqkk6dh3

NIP-05 Address

[email protected]

NIP-57 Address

LNURL1DP68GURN8GHJ7EM9W3SKCCNE9E3K7MF0D3H82UNVWQHHVMMJW3JHS08YGNT

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsq2wf4pqdxjcjyvcp5g3hd5vm5myzk2twmlqshezrssxpxs73nqespz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduqs6amnwvaz7tmwdaejumr0ds0ulew0

Publishing to

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Author Public Key

npub1q5un2zq6d93ygesrg3rwmgehfkg9v5kah7pp0jy8pqvzdparxpnqkk6dh3

Show more details

Last Notes

2024-09-16 13:30:13

- reply

Apologies I can't find time to reply to lazy douchebags who'd rather save face with insults and emojis than do any actual research.
You've been wrong about several points in this discussion and when you're wrong you brush over them and move on to the next goal post.
I've already told you that CTV doesn't cause MEV, out of band payments are no diff than LN payments, and even Peter Todd says "It’s fair to say that CTV has the broadest support among the technical community of any covenant opcode proposal because of its relative simplicity and wide range of use-cases."
Best of luck with more podcast "research" of yours.

2024-09-15 13:45:52

- reply

I told you the answer, you simply don't believe me. You've got alot more research to do. Best of luck.

2024-09-11 13:30:57

- reply

The only one that should be embarrassed is you basing all of your information solely on podcast interviews.
I suggest you do better and do some actual research on utxos.org/uses since you clearly never even heard of the site while attempting to claim that CTV can cause miner centralization.
Matt didn't write CTV and is wrong.
Peter didn't write CTV and is wrong.
If you don't understand that out of band payments is not a bad thing because it's the same as an LN payment then you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe you should read some foundation articles on my website bitcoindev.org.
The only one that is ignoring anything is you, best of luck on your "research" by doing nothing but listening to podcasts, the rest of us have work to do.

2024-09-11 01:14:42

- reply

> You just completely pretended you didn’t see them!
How could I pretend I didn't see the podcast quotes when I literally made fun of you for using them as some kind of engineering fact?
> DIRECT quotes from notable developers
False, Samspon Mow is not a developer.
>It’s WHY they’re paying them.
Miners are getting paid for the same reason with or without CTV.
>Why does he say that private out of band payments to miners create centralization risk?
Because he hasn't thought it all the way through yet, clearly.
>Covenants and arbitrary code execution in systems like Liquid, etc are OFF chain, with CAT and CTV, the logic is ON chain
CTV can absolutely create covenants with off-chain logic and payments via virtual UTXOs, study ark
It's clear you want to just listen to podcasters instead of actually learn the fundamentals of what's happening in the code.
Best of luck.

2024-09-10 20:11:49

- reply

Literally no one asked you to dox yourself, you said you were a developer so I said show me some stuff you developed and then you said no that will dox me, completely disingenuous but you haven't been very honest thus far anyway.
Yes the term L2 is used as shorthand to describe Liquid but it is in fact NOT an L2, it is a sidechain. To be a direct L2 on top of bitcoin you have to be able to have unilateral exit to the base bitcoin chain, an example being an HLTC.
Out of band payments are essentially no different then payments in LN channels which themselves are just unpublished bitcoin transactions and thus present little to no risk. It's a feature not a problem and can reduce congestion and lower on-chain transaction costs. Everything can always unroll to the chain if necessary so there should be no lost transparency or trustlessnes.
Plus CTV can do so so much more than just increase efficiency and create better vaults.
Have you even read/studied the CTV use-cases on utxos.org/uses ?
You still seem to be grossly misinformed as your primary source of information seems to come from podcasts instead of any actual research and development.
I'd say I look forward to your reply but it will probably just parrot more podcast quotes.

2024-09-10 00:09:47

- reply

I can't seem to find anything you've developed. Where's a link? Because you still seem grossly misinformed.
I repeat Liquid is not an L2 because it doesn't natively settle to bitcoin and is a federated network and therefore has completely different security guarantees than bitcoin. Lightning is the only L2 that directly settles to bitcoin due to creating a HLTC on the base chain.
You are completely wrong about covenants, as I mentioned they will help to decentralize mining pools, do more research.
> We don’t need the ability to open a million lightning channels right now.
Yes but we will in the future, many millions in fact.
> Why we don’t need op_cat, op_ctv or anything else so that we can open many lightning channels at once.
The only way to do this is with channel factories which is only possible with CTV.

2024-09-08 01:10:31

- reply

Spoken like a true non-developer who has done zero research.
No covenants to not promote mining centralization, in fact it's the opposite. Covenants could limit how miners spend their rewards, distributing them across multiple addresses or regions, preventing concentration of mining power and encouraging more decentralized mining pools
Liquid is not an L2, it is a sidechain. Lightning is an L2 and is only possible thanks to covenant like op codes such as CLTV + CSV which essentially allows a covenant between 2 parties allowing for a lightning channel to be created.
Plus covenants could help scale lighting even further with channel factories.
If you're going to comment about this stuff at least do some honest research first.

2024-08-27 13:38:08

- reply

Yep. But of course some users would be smart and choose uncensored relays.

2024-08-27 13:21:15

In theory if something like nostr were to reach scale it could de-fund corrupt social media companies and strip them of their power they use to cancel otherwise law-abiding citizens.

2024-08-25 13:44:55

- reply

Numbers aren't important, the only thing that matters is time because that's all bitcoin ever needed.

2024-08-25 13:17:10

- reply

You are communicating fine but misunderstanding how human incentives work and how they align under our current financial system vs a global bitcoin standard.
It's hard to imagine a new system from within the current system.

2024-08-25 13:08:05

- reply

*Humans don't do things at scale because they care. Every action is taken out of self preservation for themselves or someone close to them.

2024-08-25 13:05:22

- reply

It's not about caring.
Humans don't do things at scale because they care. Every action is taken out of self preservation for themselves or someone they care about.
Bitcoin simply takes the need and profitability for violence out of the equation of self preservation.
This of course will play out over decades and centuries so we will not likely see the end of war in our lifetime. But with bitcoin it is now an eventual possibility.

2024-08-25 12:59:33

- reply

Irrelevant. Read the OP again.

2024-08-25 12:58:47

- reply

Comparing a bitcoin standard with a gold standard is apples and oranges because hardly anyone had access to the global financial system under a gold standard.
The world will change over the coming decades and centuries as more and more people have access to the internet and thus the bitcoin standard than ever before.
There will eventually be no reason for war when everyone is building on top of the same sound money.

2024-08-25 12:56:41

Bitcoin has the potential to remove violence from the pursuit of self preservation.
When everyone has access to and is building on top of a bitcoin standard incentives will change on a global scale.
Fix the money, fix the world.

2024-08-21 14:01:21

It seems we can't obtain rough consensus on what rough consensus means.

2024-08-16 13:54:56

- reply

Cypherpunks write code, losers talk shit on social media.

2024-08-12 13:49:27

- reply

As far as recommendations go, because knowledge is on a scale and no one individual truly understands bitcoin fully you have to follow many individuals to get as close as you can to a general understanding of bitcoin. I have a list called Bitcoin on X that you can checkout by visiting my theonevortex profile and clicking on lists.

2024-08-12 13:46:51

- reply

Similar to scaling knowledge of bitcoin can be measured on a scale so there's only varying degrees instead of a binary outcome, and Saylor is simply farther along the scale of understanding but that clearly doesn't mean he fully understands bitcoin, especially with his continuous promotion of fiat and centralized custodians.