pull down to refresh
84 sats \ 13 replies \ @justin_shocknet 10h \ on: Sunday Survey: Was Taproot a good thing for Bitcoin? bitcoin
There's been 0 benefit to Bitcoin's value prop as money.
All it has achieved is giving ethead adjacent/script kiddies a morale boost via precedent, such that they'll be able to continue pushing to make Bitcoin more like Ethereum. Incentives for development have completely shifted to pet-usecase centralized application stacks.
Abject disaster.
Nobody voting yes is actually keeping a meaningful amount of Bitcoin in a Taproot address, can all but guarantee they're bandwagon jumping hypocrites.
Why not keep bitcoin in taproot addresses, what's the story there?
reply
You'll have to ask a Taproot enjoooyer why they don't walk the walk... I can only speculate.
reply
reply
... Or even a material amount across all addresses total.
Proponents would seem to be either afraid of using it, or lied about their urgent use-cases all along.
On a purely relative basis, a proponents burden of proof is that they're no less "safe" than address types with a longer track record... But they won't put any skin in the game on their experiment.
reply
I guess I'm special. It's been quite long time since I last used anything onchain that's not taproot. The only non-taproot is when using lightning.
(just to highlight for other readers - Taproot is now 10% by output value and 20% by output count)
reply
Could go all-in with Taproot Channels... why the hesitation?
reply
reply
there's no actual prod solution yet
All my LN channels are STC (where is possible with the peer) from long time ago. And are perfectly fine.
Even chantools is supporting them now.
LND has had them since v17
there were theoretical benefits to privacy that haven't materialized yet.
bwcause no one actually cares about privacy.
but I say give it a little time.
main one that comes to mind is multisig indistinguishable from single sig transaction .
reply
Privacy is paradoxical, so I don't think anything should ever tout privacy as a feature or benefit, it should be incidental to something superior for its own reasons.
Things like Monero and Tor for example, privacy is the feature benefit, but that also makes them less private because it attracts a smaller anonset (retards) because they're otherwise useless, and more relative surveillance because it's a honeypot/target rich with said retards.
Privacy as a feature also leads users to stray from privacy practices due to a false sense of security. These undiscerning users fulfill the paradox of deanonymizing private systems through improper practices.
Taproot channels are often cited as a benefit to Lightning, but to your point nobody cares so use is negligible... and if we did get a flood of new privacy focused users, they'd quickly deanonymize an otherwise private network today through centralized swap services and ignorance of utxo management.
reply