Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Taproot, Bitcoin’s long-anticipated upgrade, has activated

coindesk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 237 posts

Re: Taproot, Bitcoin’s long-anticipated upgrade, has activated

#41

Post by gruez »

piaste wrote: post #25
TekMol wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A second layer transaction does not involve the Bitcoin network. When Katy wants to pay ₿3 to Billie, Katy just sends a key (via email or some API) to Billie which enables Billie to withdraw ₿3 from the account of Katy. But Billie does not do that. Billie just keeps that message like you keep your login to your bank account. When Katy wants to pay another ₿5 to Billie, Katy sends a key to Billie which enables Billie…

However, if nothing happens on the Bitcoin network, then the funds aren't locked down, are they? In other words, Billie has no guarantee that the key she holds will be valid tomorrow; Katy could empty that account at any time, and Billie would then hold nothing except the evidence of Katy's wrongdoing.

> However, if nothing happens on the Bitcoin network, then the funds aren't locked down, are they?

they are locked down. the funds in a lightning channel are locked in a 2 of 2 multisig address, and can only be moved upon mutual consent (ie. by updating the state of the channel), or by one party after sufficient time has passed (in case of an uncooperative peer).

Re: Taproot, Bitcoin’s long-anticipated upgrade, has activated

#42

Post by gruez »

KptMarchewa wrote: post #24
TekMol wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A second layer transaction does not involve the Bitcoin network. When Katy wants to pay ₿3 to Billie, Katy just sends a key (via email or some API) to Billie which enables Billie to withdraw ₿3 from the account of Katy. But Billie does not do that. Billie just keeps that message like you keep your login to your bank account. When Katy wants to pay another ₿5 to Billie, Katy sends a key to Billie which enables Billie…

Can you send 8worthless$ using that method, then move money out of the account via normal transfer?

no, because the funds are locked down while in the lightning channel. see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29228483

Re: Taproot, Bitcoin’s long-anticipated upgrade, has activated

#43

Post by TekMol »

323 wrote: post #36
TekMol wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know?

Because there are no articles about big companies having money transfer problems with their suppliers. The complains are about the "buy now pay 90 days later" part, not about the actual money transfer.

How hard did you try to find such articles?

I would imagine the suppliers of Wirecard do see it as a problem that the $2B WireCard said it has in the bank did not exist. In a blockchain setup, they would have known it.

Ducking for "supplier" and "insolvency" brings up quite a lot of stuff about this topic:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=insolvency+suppliers

Re: Taproot, Bitcoin’s long-anticipated upgrade, has activated

#44

Post by G3rn0ti »

lightweb wrote: post #20

Ignore at your own potential peril.. BTCers don't care, apparently https://coingeek.com/could-taproot-privacy-features-make-btc...

All Layer 2 scaling solutions would also be obfuscating transactions because all out of chain transactions are invisible on chain.

Re: Taproot, Bitcoin’s long-anticipated upgrade, has activated

#45

Post by x86_64Ubuntu »

323 wrote: post #36
TekMol wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know?

Because there are no articles about big companies having money transfer problems with their suppliers. The complains are about the "buy now pay 90 days later" part, not about the actual money transfer.

And Net X(Net 90 in your case) is part of business, so it' not going away because of a blockchain.

Re: Taproot, Bitcoin’s long-anticipated upgrade, has activated

#46

Post by 323 »

TekMol wrote: post #43
323 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there are no articles about big companies having money transfer problems with their suppliers. The complains are about the "buy now pay 90 days later" part, not about the actual money transfer.

How hard did you try to find such articles? I would imagine the suppliers of Wirecard do see it as a problem that the $2B WireCard said it has in the bank did not exist. In a blockchain setup, they would have known it. Ducking for "supplier" and "insolvency" brings up quite a lot of stuff about this topic: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=insolvency+suppliers

Supplier insolvency has nothing to do with money transfer.

And if you think that you can "lock bitcoin" into an account to avoid this, you obviously don't know much about how these things work. Hint: you can also "lock dollars" today, it's called "escrow". But it wasn't used in WireCard (I take your word for it, I don't know the case).

Explained like I'm five: BMW will not accept it's bitcoin being locked for 90 days, so that it's supplier can be sure it will receive it's pay. Because if BMW would have accepted such a thing, it would pay today, not 90 days later. So crypto doesn't solve any problem here, because BMW doesn't want this problem solved.

And today, the supplier would use "factoring" so that it can receive the money instantly, instead of 90 days later, and the bank which provides the factoring service will make sure to take it's money from BMW later. Hint: you need capital to be able to provide factoring, since it involves credit risk, so crypto can't replace that either directly (it could with some fancy smart contracts that pool liquidity and yield)

Re: Taproot, Bitcoin’s long-anticipated upgrade, has activated

#48

Post by TekMol »

323 wrote: post #46
TekMol wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How hard did you try to find such articles? I would imagine the suppliers of Wirecard do see it as a problem that the $2B WireCard said it has in the bank did not exist. In a blockchain setup, they would have known it. Ducking for "supplier" and "insolvency" brings up quite a lot of stuff about this topic: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=insolvency+suppliers

Supplier insolvency has nothing to do with money transfer. And if you think that you can "lock bitcoin" into an account to avoid this, you obviously don't know much about how these things work. Hint: you can also "lock dollars" today, it's called "escrow". But it wasn't used in WireCard (I take your word for it, I don't know the case). Explained like I'm five: BMW will not accept it's bitcoin being locked for 90 days…

    BMW will not accept it's bitcoin
    being locked for 90 days
The way I see the future, BMW will not only lock their Bitcoin for 90 days but much longer. And not only the Bitcoin they owe to one supplier. But a large portion of their Bitcoin. Aka their virtual bank account. They can still use their account however they like. But if one of their suppliers feels that the balance goes dangerously low, the supplier can block further spending or settle everything.

Re: Taproot, Bitcoin’s long-anticipated upgrade, has activated

#49

Post by sowbug »

nanna wrote: post #47

Can anyone explain why my genuine question below -- "When will BTC move to an energy efficient protocol?" -- was flagged? Seems a bit gratuitous?

I didn't flag, but if that's what you wrote, it's off-topic.

It's also tedious. We get it. It uses energy by design. You can count on any HN Bitcoin discussion to bring out the environmentalist in almost anyone.

Re: Taproot, Bitcoin’s long-anticipated upgrade, has activated

#50

Post by Gosper »

nanna wrote: post #47

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 need good security to be trusted.

The stupendous levels of complexity involved in trying to hammer out proof of stake into a viable method of energy efficient mining make the approach look ever more unpromising.

Ethereum keeps delaying the switch and the touted 2022 migration has once again been kicked into the long grass after this paper from a few weeks ago: https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.10086

Lead to: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-42764 https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-42765 https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-42766

Post reply on HN