>I can run one command on my commuter and get a sum of all the UTXOs.
So same as any other chain with CT, including Liquid, monero, litecoin, etc.
You basically came here just to say "I don't understand it and I don't want it anyway". Fine, dude whatever, just don't understand why you bothered commenting at all the if you are not adding anything constructive.
Because you’re talking about changing Bitcoin. While I don’t feel strongly about proposed features, I do feel strongly that it’s unwise to change the protocol to fit a personal vision or agenda. Especially in a way which wouldn’t be backwards compatible with older clients.
If you could make confidential transactions as a soft fork where old clients are still compatible, what’s the point in complaining that they don’t exist? Just go fork it.
It's a soft fork. Old clients don't even need to bother with it, same as segwit or taproot.
That’s excellent. Why haven’t more people like yourself forked it?
You’re right. Maybe I’m a bit of a fork fundamentalist. I prefer people run new software on their own, and let others join later if they find it valuable. If you really don’t need others to update to accommodate your change, you should just make it.
I still feel like I’m missing a piece of how this functions in practice though. It feels strange that someone like Adam Back would implement confidential transactions on a L2 like liquid instead of as a soft fork if it really was better suited for the base layer.
I’m open to arguments which explain it logically - you just lost me a bit at the “you’re trusting anyway” argument. I personally think it’s better to assume someone is intelligent and capable of verifying code for themselves than just assume it’s futile and that they should trust the word of others.
The "you're trusting it anyway" was in response to your claim that CT are non-auditable. They are, you just need to understand the code and math behind them, same as with regular transactions.
Sorry I missed your last paragraph.
It can be done with a SF. "Just fork it" is a lame response because you know very well that you need social lobbying first for that to happen which is just what I'm doing.
Same as all the other folks are doing with ctv, op_vault, apo, op_cat, etc.
