Consider a 2-of-3 multisig address. You can sign a message using any of the 3 keys. But the 2-of-3 address itself is the hash of a script demanding proof from a combination of keys.
So to “sign” a multisig address (P2SH, bc1q…), you have to reveal the script, which reveals the pubkey hashes, then you can sign the message with a quorum of signers.
One could theoretically design a UX for this. Two UXs really—one for the signer and one for the verifier. But to my knowledge, no smooth UX currently exists.
Maybe I’ll bite the bullet and listen.
Classic fourth turning. The GFC wiped out Millennials. The free-floating anxiety has been festering since. COVID lockdowns were the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back.
#Bitcoin fixes this. But it may take a decade or two.
TIL: while it’s pretty easy to sign a message for a single-sig address, there’s no easy equivalent for a multisig address. #Bitcoin
🫡
#100pushups a day until $
#Bitcoin $100k
Day 016: 2024-04-07 - 20, 20, 20, 20, 20
A few hours late on the last set, had to play catch up. 😬
What’s a good #nostr client for long-form content writing? #asknostr
#100pushups a day until #Bitcoin $100k
Day 016: 2024-04-07 - 25, 25, 25, 25
Keep it up lads!
Like bloodletting, or leaches
That was quick
Good question. First, a point of order: Taproot did not enable Ordinals. Ordinals were first invented in 2012 under the name “colored coins”. Ordinals is just a rebrand of an old idea using modern OP codes.
From the perspective of regular users like us, Ordinal transactions are merely space-inefficient. That is, they use way more block space than strictly necessary to transfer sats. Wasting block space is possible no matter what features are enabled/removed.
But then again, waste is in the eye of the beholder. A multisig transaction uses more block space than a single sig transaction. From the single sig enjoyer’s perspective, multisig users are wasting block space.
Whether transactions are block-space efficient or not, they must be FEE-efficient. Every transaction, to be mined at all, must outcompete lower-fee transactions. Block space is pay-to-play.
And thankfully so! The fee market is what keeps Bitcoin censorship resistant. A censored party can increase their offered fee until it’s irresistible to some miner to take. Miners that censor pay for their prejudice in lost revenue.
So having said all that, your question is whether covenants, while designed to increase space efficiency, could be used to instead to create space-inefficient transactions (Ordinals, etc.). I must admit that since any feature of Bitcoin’s locking script could be used inefficiently, it stands to reason that someone could use covenant OP codes in this way.
Would an Ordinal developer be likely to do so? My guess would be “no”, because there are better (less inefficient) ways of encoding their garbage than trying to shoehorn a covenant OP for this purpose.
#100pushups a day until #Bitcoin $100k
Day 015: 2024-04-05 - 20, 20, 20, 20, 20
