198 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 2 Jun 2023
Pretty groundbreaking idea. I assume it's a misprint in the overview section?
Should read:
Or am I mistaken?
reply
20 sats \ 0 replies \ @nerd2ninja 3 Jun 2023
Seems like a mistake. Bitcoin has a fully public verifiable ledger to ensure the expected supply has not unexpectedly increased!
https://buybitcoinworldwide.com/bitcoin-downtime/
reply
135 sats \ 0 replies \ @nout 2 Jun 2023
Yep, we need someone to explain that to us.
reply
132 sats \ 0 replies \ @ursuscamp 2 Jun 2023
Read it this morning. Wild read. I understood about 10% of it.
I always thought RGB was going to be a new L2, but it seems like this is actually a proposition to transfer to a completely new L1. What a bonkers and cool idea.
reply
22 sats \ 0 replies \ @Majjin 3 Jun 2023
So here's my attempt at a summary. Doing this as a way to learn the protocol and hopefully help others understand it. Feel free to correct any mistakes or point out anything that's unclear!
Think of the new Layer-1 as kind of like a side chain. The difference is that the miners only provide a time-stamping service and transaction finality. The clients store and validate their own transaction data.
The time-stamping service is called Prime. Its basically like the Timechain, however it doesn't publicly store every transaction. Instead it stores headers, which include a Merkel root for all transaction data.
Here's more info on Merkle trees: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/UpW0gAkkkIw
Miners construct a new tree with each received transaction and include its root in the new header the miner is trying to mine. Clients must keep track of the their updated Merkle proofs by requesting newly constructed trees from the miners and discarding all parts of the tree doesn't have anything to do with their transaction.
Each transaction is in the form of a single-use seal. Spending a seal "closes" it. Each seal has a unique id, which is created from the witness. The witness is the required to spend from an unclosed seal. Seals also have the spending conditions required to close it.
To transact, the client must construct a witness for the unclosed seal they want to spend from. They generate a unique id from the witness and new spending conditions to create a new seal. They send the new seal and the Merkle proof for the old seal they're spending from to the miner. The miner checks to see if the new seal spends from an unclosed seal. If so, it is included in the new ephemeral Merkle tree.
Finally, there are three ways to link this protocol to the current Bitcoin Network:
-
An initial UTXO on the Timechain is created. This UTXO has an amount of sats just above the dust limit. It also contains a special single-use seal. This seal has the mined hash of the Prime genesis header. The UTXO can also be spent by anyone. That way any Prime miner can generate the next header. If the UTXO is spent by someone without the proper properties (invalid PoW, invalid merkle root, unspendable by anyone else, etc.) Anyone can create a new UTXO that's publicly identifiable with the proper properties. Only the first one of these new single-use seal UTXOs is considered the valid one. It is a one way trip for sats transferred to the new layer 1 if this method is used.
-
A soft-fork implementing zero knowledge proofs or drivechain.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @BlueSlime 3 Jun 2023
It would be great to have some form of state management on Bitcoin for smart contracts. RGB and taproot sounds great.
I don't believe a merged mined side chain with a one-way peg is going to redefine layer 1 consensus.
I also don't share the confidence that Stacks I mean Prime can simply take over the Bitcoin and Nostr networks.
It's base layer, or bust.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kevin 3 Jun 2023
Don't conflate Prime with Stacks.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @02ad8239c2 2 Jun 2023
will be interesting to see responses to this proposal - the prospect of base layer privacy will frighten the state appeasers and the spooks that have haunted Bitcoin all this time.
take note of those who try to dismiss or derail it, or try to personally attack/slur the developers.
whether or not this particular approach is successful, it will be a good test of integrity, and could be very revealing of ethos, or rather lack of it, in certain people.
reply