151–160 of 237 posts
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…
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.
Taproot was proposed 2.5 years ago; maybe that's speedy in "Bitcoin core time".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
BTC is not built to support KYC/AML.
Then it's going to be weaponized to launder money and be made illegal eventually.
People have been yelling about this all being made illegal for literally a decade, and it hasn't happened yet.
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 if I’m a single supplier and I want to act as a hostile actor in order to negotiate better terms or something, does my refusing to sign mean that _all_ supplier transactions are reversed or at least slowed on chain? Is there an actual attack surface here? Also, if I’m adding a new supplier in this example, do I have to spin up an entirely new “virtual bank” to do so? Or can I just add them to the current one? What…
Also note, as exemplified by altcoins it is always possible to trade off decentralization or security for more features.
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…
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.
Good riddance. I don't think KYC/AML are a force for good. Its just more box ticking laws that serve to give a false sense of security while poor people are being excluded from the banking system and normal people have their all their data stolen from centralized databases. Real dangerous criminals don't give a damn about KYC/AML laws and operate freely within the banking framework. The European Central Bank chairwom…
If KYC/AML is not possible in the bitcoin world, you're not going to be getting a world with bitcoin that doesn't have KYC/AML.
You're going to get a world with no bitcoin.
In my mind, it speaks more to a criticism of how poor our current energy infrastructure is.
I don't think for example in 30 years it'll be a big problem when energy becomes more abundant and building nuclear reactors are easier.
And this is coming from someone who believes Bitcoin is little more than a Ponzi scheme and most of the innovation in fintech is happening outside the cryptocurrency space.
Still, it's pretty cool that changes to Bitcoin can happen like this. Makes me think eventually they'll figure out a use case for it, besides buying lattes in El Salvador.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then it's going to be weaponized to launder money and be made illegal eventually.
There is no future tense here. Bitcoin is designed to be fungible - it's digital cash.
BTC has a history, so if I had 1 BTC, and you had 1 BTC, they wouldn't be equivalent.
When you deposit BTC into a Coinbase account from a gambling site, CB shuts down your account. That is irrefutable proof that BTC is not fungible.
Compare it to cash which is fungible. If you win money at a casino and deposit it at a bank, the bank doesn't know where you got the cash from.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the transaction is fully signed and can be broadcast at any time by either party to settle. It doesn't have to be broadcasted and further transactions can be done on top and they just keep it private between themselves.
I'm missing how you can have a transaction that is not broadcasted but that prevents a double spend. Can't I give two different people signed transactions for the same bitcoins? How could the second recipient know I've already spent the balance on the first? Apologies for the no-doubt naive questions, it just sounds impossible.