I’m all for making efficiency changes, fixing bugs, etc.
However, I don’t think we can claim that the missing op_codes are “broken” functionality or alternatively that those codes were blessed by Satoshi. We actually have no idea why Satoshi removed the codes.
If you recall Livera’s podcast, Rusty only considered the CPU and memory impacts of adding back the codes. He never once turned his mind to the potential for more MEV and miner centralization, or any other 2nd or 3rd order effects. I was shocked when he basically said that he didn’t care about how they might be abused.
If we’ve learned the lesson of inscriptions, we should realize that protocol changes can inadvertently change incentives and encourage centralization.
Bitcoin is our hope for the future. I believe that it’s highly resilient but not invulnerable. Mistakes introduced to the core protocol are one of the few ways that can disrupt it. We need to be careful.
How can anyone say these changes are “safe” if nobody knows how they will be used (or abused)?
I believe that we need to ask ourselves:
1) Can the issue be solved in any other way, other than a change to the core protocol? Have we waited long enough for other solutions to emerge?
2) If we must change the core protocol, what is the most limited change we can make that actually solves the problem?
Do you agree that these are the important questions? If so, I would be interested in your answers to them.
techfeudalist /
npub1nz3…yxqu
2024-06-06 20:17:43
in reply to nevent1q…pke9
Author Public Key
npub1nz3cd3mx4jf9paxwrdgqvchaprjdge9pj9t58mkusw74q5saajkqu0yxquPublished at
2024-06-06 20:17:43Event JSON
{
"id": "ab1002ad99e6f4e865d64cae9b3be51dfb29c50e368801a81a7c4e847393cf87",
"pubkey": "98a386c766ac9250f4ce1b500662fd08e4d464a1915743eedc83bd50521decac",
"created_at": 1717697863,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8cd39a9a3328ccf68af8e6fd7864b04e4e341e398058584152d6c85ebb3e32db",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"cf5ec1fc371445338c49ef3316aefece8a067d5ae9cc93dfa8743f57f6c84a29",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"c7eda660a6bc8270530e82b4a7712acdea2e31dc0a56f8dc955ac009efd97c86"
],
[
"p",
"32e1827635450ebb3c5a7d12c1f8e7b2b514439ac10a67eef3d9fd9c5c68e245"
]
],
"content": "I’m all for making efficiency changes, fixing bugs, etc. \n\nHowever, I don’t think we can claim that the missing op_codes are “broken” functionality or alternatively that those codes were blessed by Satoshi. We actually have no idea why Satoshi removed the codes. \n\nIf you recall Livera’s podcast, Rusty only considered the CPU and memory impacts of adding back the codes. He never once turned his mind to the potential for more MEV and miner centralization, or any other 2nd or 3rd order effects. I was shocked when he basically said that he didn’t care about how they might be abused. \n\nIf we’ve learned the lesson of inscriptions, we should realize that protocol changes can inadvertently change incentives and encourage centralization. \n\nBitcoin is our hope for the future. I believe that it’s highly resilient but not invulnerable. Mistakes introduced to the core protocol are one of the few ways that can disrupt it. We need to be careful.\n\nHow can anyone say these changes are “safe” if nobody knows how they will be used (or abused)? \n\nI believe that we need to ask ourselves:\n\n1) Can the issue be solved in any other way, other than a change to the core protocol? Have we waited long enough for other solutions to emerge?\n\n 2) If we must change the core protocol, what is the most limited change we can make that actually solves the problem?\n\nDo you agree that these are the important questions? If so, I would be interested in your answers to them.",
"sig": "c48a1a14dc7d49afe3a98dd82904ee5f80df29d621e0bc37f6828a9f86b576b12b88fc6e146d7e399fcf145491ec9e2ed237a3ed7bdd471ef9b7501352c87010"
}