1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D99E5C0011
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 21 Feb 2022 09:09:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCB7B404FC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 21 Feb 2022 09:09:17 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 30CK437z9DJL
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 21 Feb 2022 09:09:17 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-40138.protonmail.ch (mail-40138.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.138])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF6CB4010E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 21 Feb 2022 09:09:16 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 09:09:09 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail3; t=1645434554;
bh=XYEcGT1eMF9AdS5y1AK8LglnVUWsRBIMQZ25FPxCf/g=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:
References:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID:
Message-ID;
b=donEhd5edX3DJ6+1PgDzwL6mAD9yhQRgywYn3ygY8I7QYw/oSrfoIfc/2VU0oIWLD
3p/ekgn7EuXxYjvfHCjvcGBVCv2DQfN1tQo2ViYDmtMMZUa1EROn76oQbhWuZvpVrQ
hnwtqYzTDx6EQAKyDkhzZ++pVUfT6maQ9krwYzVF5C/6fMjpjriqL2tqfUxa4GYqUa
h4DCw5S/wm9q++kWCjlIr2xn0LCRCCT09XTkQ+iFHdSk47ZGnmcJqZ8WPOlSRmlHwo
ael3wm2M3GKTJJatl8vtHFgIlcyWUglH6rCSHAOMyj7AxWeEQlw4suKSITbhEdyxbO
B5qdLhV1a6Kbw==
To: Prayank <prayank@tutanota.de>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <P-AzUGkyLnnGrB-5l8QdkQl9FSZdjL9wHZ-nyTcaMoh_i4dyWPWDWIl9ghAWqh00oreJ9ozX9oy-QCmTS_6b00OUAGPNID16tZj78JG20vA=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <MwPDtAD--3-2@tutanota.de>
References: <MtetoOZ--3-2@tutanota.de> <YhAujmus3z69cUl7@petertodd.org>
<CAJowKgKFeDSA5c5ejLyF7R=kEEAY6dtOY1dNV=6eQG2_Dj7eTg@mail.gmail.com>
<MwPDtAD--3-2@tutanota.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Stumbling into a contentious soft fork activation
attempt
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 09:09:18 -0000
Good morning,
> If this is the reason to stop/delay improvements in bitcoin, maybe it app=
lies for Taproot as well although I don't remember reading such things in y=
our posts or maybe missed it.
Perhaps a thing to note, is that if it allows us to move some activity off-=
chain, and reduce activity on the blockchain, then the increase in function=
ality does *not* translate to a requirement of block size increase.
So for example:
* Taproot, by allowing the below improvements, is good:
* Schnorr multisignatures that allow multiple users to publish a single s=
ignature, reducing block size usage for large participant sets.
* MAST, which allows eliding branches of complicated SCRIPTs that are not=
executed, reducing block size usage for complex contracts.
* `SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT`, by enabling an offchain updateable multiparty (N > =
2) cryptocurrency system (Decker-Russell-Osuntokun), is also good, as it al=
lows us to make channel factories without having to suffer the bad tradeoff=
s of Decker-Wattenhofer.
* `OP_CTV`, by enabling commit-to-unpublished-promised-outputs, is also goo=
d, as it allows opportunities for transactional cut-through without having =
to publish promised outputs *right now*.
So I do not think the argument should really object to any of the above, ei=
ther --- all these improvements increase the functionality of Bitcoin, but =
also allow opportunities to use the blockchain as judge+jury+executioner in=
stead of noisy marketplace.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
