81–90 of 237 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, why wouldn't it? The funds are locked in a 2 of 2 multisig address.
I'm confused then, doesn't this still need one transaction in the block chain for every transaction?
A crazy thing with Taproot is: A company could create a virtual bank to handle all transfers with its suppliers by doing a single onchain transaction. From the outside, it would look like a normal "Someone sent some coins from address A to address B" transaction. But internally, a key needed to spend the funds is only valid if the company and all of its suppliers sign it. This means every time there is a transaction…
So basically, does that mean KYC/AML are officially dead in BTC's environment? The picture was not bright before, but with this kind of innovations, it seems impossible for this network to build banking systems that respect regulations.
A crazy thing with Taproot is: A company could create a virtual bank to handle all transfers with its suppliers by doing a single onchain transaction. From the outside, it would look like a normal "Someone sent some coins from address A to address B" transaction. But internally, a key needed to spend the funds is only valid if the company and all of its suppliers sign it. This means every time there is a transaction…
BMW and it's suppliers have zero problems moving money today.
Just because you don't technically have a problem doing something now and no one is complaining, doesn't mean there's not a drastically more efficient way to do the thing, and those organizations that start doing the more efficient thing rapidly out compete and make irrelevant those who hold onto the legacy ways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's because bitcoin is so centralized these days Citation badly needed. For taproot to rollout, you need wallet providers, exchanges, nodes and miners to agree. There are hundreds/thousands of different participants in each one of these categories across the world. Specifically, 90% of nodes need to signal for it.
It says right in the article that wallets don't support taproot either at the moment. > Specifically, 90% of nodes need to signal for it. Wrong, 90% of mined blocks need to signal it, not 90% of nodes. Big difference: > at least 90% of the blocks mined in any of the designated two-week difficulty periods "signal" their support for the upgrade, then the activation process can begin. To be more precise: 1,815 out of 2,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know why you were flagged, but if your question was in earnest: Bitcoin almost certainly won't move. Because those touted energy efficient protocols come at the cost of much weaker security guarantees which undermine a key point of Bitcoin. Proof of stake, the forerunner of energy efficient protocols, may work better for networks that have different aims, although smart contract oriented blockchains still nee…
It really was in earnest! I don't keep up with crypto news so just assumed this was something being worked on somehow. Your answer would have fitted well with the thread that responded to my question! As difficult as the vulnerabilities of PoS are to solve, at least there's nothing yet to say that they can't be solved given enough work; wheras, from what everyone is saying, the energy problem is essential to PoW as s…
How do you establish that root of trust with PoS? Currently approaches are ultimately circular, IE trust it because the majority holders of the coin are continually voting to trust it.
Can anyone explain why my genuine question below -- "When will BTC move to an energy efficient protocol?" -- was flagged? Seems a bit gratuitous?
I don't know why you were flagged, but if your question was in earnest: Bitcoin almost certainly won't move. Because those touted energy efficient protocols come at the cost of much weaker security guarantees which undermine a key point of Bitcoin. Proof of stake, the forerunner of energy efficient protocols, may work better for networks that have different aims, although smart contract oriented blockchains still nee…
That's FUD. Protocols like Bitcoin can fork, whereas others don't. Thus, Bitcoin, and proof-of-work, are less secure protocols.
Can anyone explain why my genuine question below -- "When will BTC move to an energy efficient protocol?" -- was flagged? Seems a bit gratuitous?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So basically, does that mean KYC/AML are officially dead in BTC's environment? The picture was not bright before, but with this kind of innovations, it seems impossible for this network to build banking systems that respect regulations.
BTC is not built to support KYC/AML.
One of the most interesting things in this experiment was the speedy trial imo. We now have an agreed way to change/improve consensus rules. It's very difficult to get a handful of people to agree on something, let alone all the different participants in this global/borderless system.
That's because bitcoin is so centralized these days, that you can get all the people that matter in a room and hash things out. Note how half of the Bitcoin network nodes don't support taproot yet, but it's irrelevant. The few nodes that matter do support it.
Taproot is a softfork, which means a tightening of the rules. There are basically a set of placeholder script types, that are currently undefined by the network ruleset. By being undefined, you can basically add whatever garbage you want, and it will technically be valid.
So, blocks that are mined now with taproot transactions are still considered valid by nodes and miners that haven't upgraded or don't support the change. Their nodes just see these transactions as unintelligible garbage, but still permissible.
However, the risk these nodes take on by not upgrading support, is that they might receive a block, assume it's valid even though there are transactions they don't understand, but in fact are invalid taproot transactions and rejected by the upgraded network. This is a much greater concern for miners than regular nodes, because miners have severe economic risks associated with incorrectly assuming an invalid block is valid, whereas non mining nodes don't have as great of a risk, because they generally wait for several confirmed blocks before assuming their transactions were confirmed.