Quote from: Kruw on September 08, 2024, 10:10:48 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on September 08, 2024, 07:49:56 AM

Stop nit-picking, everyone knows Peter Todd is one of the most trustworthy and most intellectually-honest developers in the community.

So why are you getting upset at me for defending innocent open source Bitcoin contributors against false accusations? Shouldn't you be upset with BlackHatCoiner instead and telling him that he owes Peter Todd an apology for falsely accusing him of taking money to cover up flaws?

I'm telling you that there's actually no need to be upset. Because if a random pleb from the internet calls Peter Todd a "shill" for "something", then we could be very confident that it's not true.

Leave him alone.

Quote from: vjudeu on September 08, 2024, 11:07:08 AM

Quote

why Andrew Poelstra's OP_CAT is more popular for the users/advocates of Ordinals, rather than Jeremy Rubin's OP_CTV

There was a topic about it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5220520.0

In general, there was some drama, regarding activation of OP_CTV, and it simply failed. If it wouldn't fail, then we could have OP_CTV first, and Taproot later.

They tried Speedy Trial? Was that it?

Quote

However, it is, what it is: soft-forks are difficult to deploy properly. We don't even have a clear consensus, how the next soft-fork should be deployed, whatever it will be. Which leads some people to create their proposals in a no-fork way, because then, it has a higher chance of succeeding.

And also, OP_CAT is more generic. Why this is important? Because if you deploy for example OP_CTV, and you find out later, that "hey, we forgot about use case X", then it will be very difficult to activate yet another soft-fork, to add this functionality. However, with OP_CAT, it is more likely to cover everything (or even more than needed).

But won't that also open the network to more possibilities of actually getting exploited/attacked? It's probably better to take the safer path with OP_CTV, no?