From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D99E5C0011 for ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion From: ZmnSCPxj Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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