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

On anyone-can-spend Pay-to-Taproot outputs before activation

b10c.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 65 posts

Re: On anyone-can-spend Pay-to-Taproot outputs before activation

#51

Post by hanniabu »

arcticbull wrote: post #48
hanniabu wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Words have different meaning in different contexts. In blockchain, inflation refers to the emission of newly minted coin.

In economics inflation is a change in purchasing power of a currency. Words have meaning. This is what inflation means to everyone without laser eyes ;) and the word appears to have been redefined to spur unsubstantiated fear to pump bitcoin. So I suggest we all begin using the right word for the job and correcting folks who are using it wrong.

"The term is used differently in this context"

"No the context I'm used to is the only possible answer"

This combined with your mention of fear and pumping, it seems you have a heavy bias against cryptocurrencies so it's not worthwhile to continue this discussion with you.

Re: On anyone-can-spend Pay-to-Taproot outputs before activation

#52

Post by arcticbull »

hanniabu wrote: post #51
arcticbull wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In economics inflation is a change in purchasing power of a currency. Words have meaning. This is what inflation means to everyone without laser eyes ;) and the word appears to have been redefined to spur unsubstantiated fear to pump bitcoin. So I suggest we all begin using the right word for the job and correcting folks who are using it wrong.

"The term is used differently in this context" "No the context I'm used to is the only possible answer" This combined with your mention of fear and pumping, it seems you have a heavy bias against cryptocurrencies so it's not worthwhile to continue this discussion with you.

Oh I understand the crypto communities use, I’m saying they intentionally or unintentionally chose a meaning aligned with their interests and not with reality. I will continue to call out their bad faith actions because if cryptocurrencies are to form any meaningful role in a future economic order it has to be from a position of, well, reality.

I've followed the space very closely for 6ish years now, and I've made a lot of money on crypto both long and short, and I engage with a lot of folks both online and in real life who are both pro- and anti- crypto.

However, fundamentally, I'm with Jackson Palmer.

https://twitter.com/ummjackson/status/1415353991106420741

Re: On anyone-can-spend Pay-to-Taproot outputs before activation

#53

Post by nullc »

vecio wrote: post #18

The miner can include some non-standard transactions makes Bitcoin not so perfect, and once that non-standard transactions included in a block, other miners won't validate its script at all, that make it worse.

I can't quite follow what you're thinking.

The bitcoin transaction format has numerous points of intentional forward compatibility: Fields, flags, bits, etc. which intentionally have no effect at this time but which could be further restricted in the future in order to create functionality. Examples include future transaction version numbers and future script version numbers.

Use of these forward compatibility features is "non-standard" which means that unmodified software will not relay, mine, or display-while-unconfirmed transactions which use them. But if they happen to show up inside blocks, they'll be accepted.

This protects these fields for future use. Otherwise, some software would start randomly setting them (e.g. due to programming mistakes or confusion) and then these systems would catch fire when later the fields were given a defined meaning.

This article is about output with version 1 instead of version 0. Currently v1 is defined to have no effect. At block 709632 (in November roughly) that will change and v1 will have a meaning defined by BIP-341 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0341.mediawi...).

Re: On anyone-can-spend Pay-to-Taproot outputs before activation

#54

Post by aeternum »

nullc wrote: post #50
lawn wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real artistry is convincing people that the complexity cost of soft forks are worth it.

Complexity costs come from backwards compatibility. Backwards compatibility is essential because otherwise the change potentially confiscates users funds. Assuming compatibility is required softforks generally reduce complexity because they relax the requirement for synchronization between participants.

Softforks reduce deployment complexity but increase overall complexity.

A softfork is like internet access over phone-lines. If you pick up the line, participants that aren't on the latest code will often hear a bunch of garbage that they can't make sense of. Someone might even send them money but they won't be able to make sense of it or accept it since it's now encapsulated.

From an overall network perspective, this may be a worse state of affairs vs. just making everyone upgrade (hard-fork).

Re: On anyone-can-spend Pay-to-Taproot outputs before activation

#55

Post by mrow84 »

hanniabu wrote: post #45
jtms wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin is deflationary by definition, not inflationary. Once the last coin is mined that's it - that's all there will ever be. I think you might have inflation and deflation backwards. Inflation can result from a large supply of currency being injected into a monetary system (ie: "bailouts"). This injection dilutes the value of all existing units of currency. This can cause prices to rise (though not always). In oth…

Decreasing emission is not deflation, it's still inflation but just less of it

It is deflationary, in terms of your chosen unit of exchange/account, when combined with an increase in demand, hypothetical or otherwise, that is above the rate of emission.

Re: On anyone-can-spend Pay-to-Taproot outputs before activation

#56

Post by nullc »

aeternum wrote: post #54
nullc wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complexity costs come from backwards compatibility. Backwards compatibility is essential because otherwise the change potentially confiscates users funds. Assuming compatibility is required softforks generally reduce complexity because they relax the requirement for synchronization between participants.

Softforks reduce deployment complexity but increase overall complexity. A softfork is like internet access over phone-lines. If you pick up the line, participants that aren't on the latest code will often hear a bunch of garbage that they can't make sense of. Someone might even send them money but they won't be able to make sense of it or accept it since it's now encapsulated. From an overall network perspective, thi…

You can't just "make everyone upgrade", not without a time machine-- because there are transactions which may have been written arbitrarily far in the past, already signed, potentially lock-timed, whos signers (or at least their keys) have sailed off into the sunset.

If compatibility with their signatures is dropped those funds will be irreparably and irrecoverably destroyed.

So, for example, BCash deployed an earlier version of our schnorr signature spec (from before the taproot part was finished) in a "hardfork" but preventing destroying funds meant that they had to keep the ECDSA support around (duo to presigned transactions, hardware security modules, etc.) -- so they didn't escape any complexity in that change, they introduced a disruptive flag-day which introduced its own extra complexity.

> often hear a bunch of garbage that they can't make sense of

The changes are compatible so you know those extra fields are stuff "from the future" which you don't understand and know you can ignore.

> but they won't be able to make sense of it or accept

The recipient of funds always specifies their own rules, you'll never specify rules that you don't understand so there isn't any issue with not being able to accept it.

Re: On anyone-can-spend Pay-to-Taproot outputs before activation

#57

Post by jtms »

arcticbull wrote: post #43
jtms wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin is deflationary by definition, not inflationary. Once the last coin is mined that's it - that's all there will ever be. I think you might have inflation and deflation backwards. Inflation can result from a large supply of currency being injected into a monetary system (ie: "bailouts"). This injection dilutes the value of all existing units of currency. This can cause prices to rise (though not always). In oth…

You're describing money supply, not inflation. Inflation is a change in purchasing power of a unit of currency, not the supply of the currency. The supply may influence its purchasing power but there's a lot more to it, obviously.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation#Money_supply

Re: On anyone-can-spend Pay-to-Taproot outputs before activation

#58

Post by vmception »

hanniabu wrote: post #49
vmception wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This Pay-to-Taproot output spendable by anyone is a decent example. Most multisignature behaviors still aren't exposed, its kind of weird. But looking for to taproot making multisignature addresses indistinguishable from other addresses. There's the general empty space that people shove all sorts of things into. From plain text metadata to encoded messages to derivatives trades.

From my experience that see it as a technical superiority thing. Where if you want to use that functionality you'd be smart enough to know how to use the cli and if you can't then you probably shouldn't be using it. And then are typically met with hostile attitudes saying that if you're that much of a noob and need a GUI then just go use a lite client or something. The white bitcoin core community is very ostracizing…

I’m glad that’s mostly gone from the crypto space, but its because the core maintainers of projects from the first half of the decade either disappear, leave publicly denouncing that attitude, or die.

In the mean time, a lot of people still tinker at their own volition, read technical books, or now learn about blockchain structures in universities, leading to a continual new set of people using blockchains differently or at their fundamental level.

Re: On anyone-can-spend Pay-to-Taproot outputs before activation

#59

Post by vmception »

arcticbull wrote: post #9
vmception wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm looking forward to third party assets being tradable on the Bitcoin network again. My contribution to the gradient of behaviors on that network was one where the Bitcoin asset was only used to cover transaction fees for the actual money being traded. The whole "merchant adoption" thing was always a squirrel to me. When merchants will accept stable value assets more readily, or use those stable value assets for se…

Genuine curiosity: why would you trade third-party assets on the Bitcoin network when you could do it infinitely more efficiently on any of the competing chains? It's by far the least efficient blockchain ergo the least efficient way to trade third-party assets. [edit] Direct fees are lower than they used to be, and the energy cost is about now up to about $100-120 per transaction. While that's being socialized acros…

I'd like the option as thats where they were traded before the transaction space was limited. Counterparty, OMNI... doing that stuff over Lightning Network. Other Layer 2s. The growth of this stuff is limited by bitcoin's current state. It just makes interoperability with the broader Defi space more practical.

Regarding energy, if thats your battle then work on that aspect, there are some influencers aiming to convince miners to create a more energy efficient version of transaction propagation, settled on the Bitcoin network.

Re: On anyone-can-spend Pay-to-Taproot outputs before activation

#60

Post by vmception »

gruez wrote: post #25
vmception wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm looking forward to third party assets being tradable on the Bitcoin network again. My contribution to the gradient of behaviors on that network was one where the Bitcoin asset was only used to cover transaction fees for the actual money being traded. The whole "merchant adoption" thing was always a squirrel to me. When merchants will accept stable value assets more readily, or use those stable value assets for se…

> I'm looking forward to third party assets being tradable on the Bitcoin network again. Again? Did some sort of protocol fork break colored coins or the omni network?

How do you want me to answer that? Older things are still compatible on bitcoin network in the older address format. But that mostly means choosing between meta-assets or multisig, or choosing a meta asset or segwit. They also are not transmittable over lightning network reliably yet, this is mostly a factor of no protocol and gui being finished but two people can make their own protocol.

I’m looking forward to this all being standardized and wallets surfacing it after they agree on the protocols.

Post reply on HN