I'm recording a bitcoin.review episode about OP_CAT today, drop your questions and comments below ๐Ÿ‘‡

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Hey NVK

Qs:

1. Historical Context:

- Why was OP_CAT originally removed from Bitcoin?

2. Security and Risks:

- What potential security risks are associated with reintroducing OP_CAT?

3. Community and Developer Opinions:

- What is the general consensus among Core developers regarding the reintroduction of OP_CAT?

- Are there notable advocates or opponents of its use? Why?

4. Practical Applications:

- What real-world applications could benefit from OP_CAT?

5. Future Prospects:

- What are the next steps for OP_CATโ€™s potential reintroduction?

If OP_CAT were introduced and had negative consequences, what could the theoretical next steps/solutions be?

What other proposals does OP_CAT facilitate (even with clunky coding) from a proof-of-concept standpoint?

Why doesnt honeybadger care? ๐ŸŸง

I once had a cat called Top Cat ๐Ÿซ‚ we called him TC

This is the energy I want brought to this conversation. ๐Ÿ‘

Steelman against it please. Have heard lots of good but want to hear how things break

I think the biggest issue (imo) is that we don't know the potential (subjective) negative consequences it could bring and that worries me.

Which is why it's a good topic for the pod. Not enough detailed and specific adversarial thinking, imho

Whats the closest parralel tech we have now?

There is no deployed opcode that bridges math opcodes (32 bits input) with signature opcodes (>32 bits input). OP_CAT is the simplest proposal I know of that makes this, and thus simple transaction introspection, possible.

I almost understand this statement.

Is transaction introspection the only thing we obtain by bridging the two types of op_codes?

Who are the market participants signaling desire for Op_CAT?

stop shitcoining nvk

Why can't CAT stuff be done as Taproot stuff?

OP_CAT is proposed taproot stuff.

Concatenating makes it possible to transform data to be used by both mathops and sigops within taproot script. Iโ€™m aware of no other deployed opcode that bridges these two worlds.

dafuq is opcat? ๐Ÿฑ

oh wow! ๐Ÿคฃ

c code in the lyrics I wasn't ready for ๐Ÿ˜ญ

thanks ๐Ÿ™

I want to hear the cons and possible unforeseen consequences. Proponents of OP_CAT just say yes this will open a can of worms and move on to the next question and I think people donโ€™t understand how serious this can of unforeseen consequences can be

How does it work in practice? My naive assumption is that โ€œCATโ€ is for concatenation but what are the operands , items on the stack?

Can an example script be broken down on the show to illustrate a use case?

How does the proposed change/s make Bitcoin a better money?

What monetary properties are being improved?

Is trust reintroduced anywhere?

What are the trade offs?

Are any monetary properties negatively affected?

Does it impact the rivalrous digital commodity ('asset') itself, or the peer to peer electronic cash system ('the network')?

How does it pump the Taproot Wizard's scammy bags?

The wizard rethoric around bitcoin is very unhelpful, they have no power over it. People wanted before they were around, so I try to not include that circus on my thought process

Their stupid cat NFTs ruined OP_CAT for me

Which people wanted it before they were around?

The conversion around op codes like that has been around for over a decade, it's just not on twitter/nostr

Specifically then wrt OP_CAT, what has the sentiment been in these other places (I assume IRC and bitcointalk etc?)

The quote describes OP_CAT nonsense perfectly: "You can't have nothing burger without word salad" - nostr:npub1jt97tpsul3fp8hvf7zn0vzzysmu9umcrel4hpgflg4vnsytyxwuqt8la9y

That's retarded regarding cat or any op code lol

Sounds familiar. Is #Bitcoin dead?

What are the conflicts of interests of the promoters?

Full conflict, bitcoin advocates for features are 1000% conflicted, it's designed that way

Be honest.

Does OP_CAT change mining revenue?

Does it potentially bring about a bigger risk of bitcoin being hacked?

I don't think it does, but I will add MEV to the list

How does OP_CAT's risks can be fenced out to limit risks associated with it compared to other proposals that have a similar stated goal?

How does OP_CAT advances self custody solutions in regards to inheritance and 5$ wrench attacks / kidnappings ?

Is OP_CAT creating a new de-facto crypto dividend ?

If there is a new soft-fork with CAT, what are the considerations regarding the new players in the space : Saylor / ETFs / Nationstates / Politicians?

Looking forward to listen !

What about the unknown unknowns and do the benefits outweigh the risks that this brings to a protocol that is already solving some of today's biggest problems.

They are unknowns^3

One of the biggest criticisms Iโ€™ve heard is not that CAT itself is dangerous but could complicate future soft forks. Still trying to understand what kind of risks it could introduce

find out if Op_Cat is a pussymove/ sorry/not sorry lfg/loloud

Please expand, innie or outie? Give some more technical pushback. I want to explore the OP risks.

privateparts/nda

still laughing on 2nd see

Why was OP_CAT removed before?

Excluding unknowns are there any risks that get implemented with OP_CAT?

What is the long tail of consequences of enabling op_cat? What is so broken that it needs op_cat to function? Does the problem affect so many people that there can be consensus?

Personally, I never think about soft forks because current Bitcoin works for me. I think most people feel this way.

Why is Raindael and co trying to break things?

If Etherium could not develop a good scaling solution, how can Op_cat be worth the risk of MEV ?

How will all actors (all groups of bitcoin users, miners, exchanges etc) behave If some part of the community will try to run UASF

Setting aside IF it should be activated, would love to hear about thoughts on the โ€œhowโ€ - signaling, activation methodology, etc. ๐Ÿซก

tf is op cat?

came to ask this