Nostr Web Client

i would deprecate segwit, by only allowing old segwit and legacy addresses to spend into taproot

this would also end the witness discount spam, eventually, because you wouldn't be able to go back the other way

that's about it. i'd rather nothing else was changed. i consider segwit to be a mistake and back in 2017 that was my opinion also. taproot signatures solve the signature malleability problem.

my solution doesn't take a consensus, either, just a gradual adoption of this policy by node developers to make it a default. can't wipe out old addresses from ever being able to spend but eventually every coin that was ever gonna move, would move.

schnorr signatures solve the malleability problem, they lower the block space requirement for multisig transactions, and they make lightning transactions indistinguishable from a payment from two addresses.

they could have done this in the blocksize wars, but the bastards managed to wheedle in what is essentially a block size increase, and, ironically, can't be used for actual transactions, only spammy data.

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 5mo ago

the reason why it isn't already happening though, is there is a lot of people tied up with legacy wallet software especially exchanges and this doesn't benefit them in any way. it also doesn't benefit miners, it's purely a user benefit.

this is also why so many switched to knots, which is basically a bitcoin core fork, with some sane default policies, because core devs decided to fuck around with dropping a non-consensus policy that previously more or less limited extra data in transactions to 80 bytes. it is expensive data compared to per byte cost of witness data, so they rationalised "why not drop that since no spammer will use it" but that's kinda not going with the vibe of the thing.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 5mo ago

it would have a longer term security benefit by enabling the maintenance of a large number of nodes, however. but this is far future and speculative.

LonelyBTCer 5mo ago

after all mentioned - are we more or less safe from BTC failing from a purely technical point of view?

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 5mo ago

absolutely, zero chance for at least 5 years and 10% chance in the next 5 after that, that somehow they manage to actually crack a few hash reversals on SHA256 or for that matter reverse public keys (which is already mitigated by not reusing addresses).

i personally think that Grok was being kind to the quantum doomsayers, i personally don't think that there will be an economical to run quantum computer even remotely near able to crack the cryptography before 2040.

i think they are going to figure out there is a flaw in their physics theory about the quantum states, and turn out that the algorithms that supposedly would exploit this property are not actually possible, and probably won't be possible any time sooner than there is enough computing to brute force these hashes and signatures/pubkeys anyway, by which time everything will be long ago upgraded to 512 bits or more.

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 5mo ago

as for the actual protocol and game theory level of it, it's proven itself for 16 years and if breaking the cryptography is the only viable path, i'd say that only a massive solar flare or alien invasion would break bitcoin.

LonelyBTCer 5mo ago

so stack sats stay humble and learn and educate as much as possible? Thanks for all the information today!

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 5mo ago

it should get you on the right track i think. don't trust, verify. i may have muddled something up. i don't do teaching as a profession, but what i explained is my understanding of the design of bitcoin, coming from years of exploring the subject of distributed systems and economics.

there is a lot of nonsense around, so i hope i gave you some tools to recognise it.

Jack K 5mo ago

They have assumed Superpostion is continuous across the quantum timestep. If you can’t observe Planck Time, you can’t assume continuous Superpostion.

Schrödinger’s UTXO is utter nonsense when you Bitcoin measures the quantum of time (blocks) and we can audit the entire ledger at each timestep.

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 5mo ago

yeah, i consider it to be impossible also. mainstream physics is still holding to dark matter bullshit and ignoring the mounting evidence of electromagnetic forces being the source, also.

i think there is some crazy stuff going on in physics but they sure as fuck are off the reservation, and the red flag for me is how much they hype it in the media, and idiots like shitcoiners thinking that "quantum resistant" cryptography makes a shitcoin better. i tend to assume that if stupid people believe something, it's wrong.

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 5mo ago

a method that might actually work, is if you figure out gravity and put a computer in an extreme high gravity environment so its clock is ticking thousands of times faster. then you can shorten the bruteforce process. but that's about it. but i think that making gravity near zero would be far more interesting and productive.

Jack K 5mo ago

Bitcoin defines literal quantum computation based on the original meaning of “quantum”, not the narrative spewed by media. Sunken cost fallacy is deep.

If you can’t understand what it means to compute a quantum (of time), how can physicists understand what they are observing and its true nature.

Bitcoin fractally added to the unified field theory, we are literally watching energy flow inward into time with every block mined. I just don’t think physicists understand the Kelvin must be absolutely scarce for a quantum to retain meaning. Absolute scarcity is a precondition for any existence mathematically; not this infinity narrative.

halalmoney 5mo ago

“Bitcoin fractally added to the unified field theory”

Back to the drawing board, UFT scientists!

Human 5mo ago

Bitcoin is divine order

Jack K 5mo ago

Definitely.

The mathematical object of divine order. The source and the transmission.

Human 5mo ago

A fractal of existence itself

Jack K 5mo ago

Bitcoin shows both transformation and registration of the quantum.