pull down to refresh

Cobra says developers are working to activate CTVx.com/cobrabitcoin/status/1863006822048669961
1586 sats \ 26 comments \ @Rsync25 1 Dec bitdevs
write
preview
related posts
129 sats \ 21 replies \ @melvincarvalho 1 Dec
Bitcoin doesnt need a soft fork
reply
251 sats \ 19 replies \ @freetx 1 Dec
Taproot brought a handful of unexpected consequences (ordinals, etc)....I wonder what unknown side-effects CTV will bring?
reply
374 sats \ 18 replies \ @kruw 1 Dec
Taproot didn't bring ordinals.
reply
31 sats \ 17 replies \ @freetx 1 Dec
Hmm...really?
why are the leading ordinal group named Taproot Wizards?
reply
384 sats \ 4 replies \ @kristapsk 1 Dec
Ordinals has nothing to do with Taproot. I guess you mean Inscriptions. Taproot didn't make them possible, Taproot made them possible cheaper.
reply
21 sats \ 3 replies \ @028559d218 1 Dec
My understanding is that it's the other way around. Segwit made them cheaper... and taproot made them possible.
Taproot loosened the scripting language... to allow for arbitrary data. And segwit allowed for larger amounts of data overall (to make Lightning possible at a later date) as well as making data cheaper to add to blocks (up to 4mb total).
Then crypto people came along later to sell jpegs to idiots. They did it on ethereum, then it got old. Now they've tried it on Bitcoin... and eventually people will figure out it's dumb and move on. Each inscription created, much less sold, is someone losing money. Eventually they run out of money. Rare sats, ordinal numbering schemes, memecoins... they're all the same.
They each cost the 'buyer' in opportunity cost by overpaying greatly for certain sats.. leaving them with fewer sats. Eventually they run out and the nfts are forgotten about.
reply
302 sats \ 0 replies \ @kristapsk 1 Dec
No, Taproot just removed limits on script size. But you could store the same amount of data in multiple transactions instead of one.
reply
32 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 2 Dec
And segwit allowed for larger amounts of data overall (to make Lightning possible at a later date)
Lightning didn't need larger blocks but the transaction malleability fix that SegWit included:
While transactions are signed, the signature does not currently cover all the data in a transaction that is hashed to create the transaction hash. Thus, while uncommon, it is possible for a node on the network to change a transaction you send in such a way that the hash is invalidated. Note that this just changes the hash; the output of the transaction remains the same and the bitcoins will go to their intended recipient.
Before SegWit, tx ids were malleable and thus a lightning node could lose track of its channel open tx (and any txs that depend on it) while it's getting confirmed.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 2 Dec
Thank you I did not know this. Learn something new every day.
reply on another page
102 sats \ 11 replies \ @Rsync25 OP 1 Dec
It was witness data from Segwit fork “Ordinals were made possible by two updates to the Bitcoin Protocol: Segregated Witness (SegWit) in 2017 and Taproot in 2021. These updates expanded the amount of arbitrary data that could be stored on the blockchain, allowing for the inclusion of images, videos, and other media types. While these updates were not specifically intended for NFTs, they inadvertently provided the necessary infrastructure for ordinals and inscriptions to exist.”
reply
128 sats \ 10 replies \ @freetx 1 Dec
Segwit was activated in 2017
Taproot was activated in 2021
I accept that Taproot used features of Segwit in order to use Ordinals....however trying to claim that "Segwit didn't enable Ordinals" seems pretty suspect.
reply
147 sats \ 9 replies \ @ek 1 Dec
I think you're confusing inscriptions with ordinals. Inscriptions use ordinals but ordinals didn't need SegWit or Taproot. Ordinals is just a "numbering scheme for satoshis that allows tracking and transferring individual sats", see docs.
reply
33 sats \ 1 reply \ @kruw 1 Dec
Inscriptions don't need Segwit or Taproot either. Segwit just discounts the witness data and Taproot just removes the max witness size.
view replies
10 sats \ 5 replies \ @028559d218 1 Dec
My understanding is that it's impossible to 'track sats'. Ordinals assumes first in first out with regard to inputs and outputs... but that's not the way Bitcoin works it's completely arbitrary.
The 'first sat' of the first input of a coinjoin... is not the same as the 'first sat' of the first output... They are NOT the same and 'ordinals theory' assumes that they are. They are not they cannot be tracked that way. It is a completely dumb idea.
It's a bad, old, chainanal idea which was dropped in 2013. https://youtu.be/596InlNtfD0?si=pwj-KZgu-kuTPe_q
view replies
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 1 Dec
My understanding is that it's impossible to 'track sats'. Ordinals assumes first in first out with regard to inputs and outputs... but that's not the way Bitcoin works it's completely arbitrary.
The 'first sat' of the first input of a coinjoin... is not the same as the 'first sat' of the first output... They are NOT the same and 'ordinals theory' assumes that they are. They are not they cannot be tracked that way. It is a completely dumb idea.
It's a bad, old, chainanal idea which was dropped in 2013. https://youtu.be/596InlNtfD0?si=pwj-KZgu-kuTPe_q
reply on another page
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 1 Dec
100% agree
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Artilektt 1 Dec
As some of the X comments noted, the fact that "not enough people are paying attention to this" would make a UASF soft fork very difficult
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 1 Dec
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @BitcoinIsTheFuture 2 Dec
Ha good luck. Don’t see this happening
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nitter 1 Dec bot
https://xcancel.com/cobrabitcoin/status/1863006822048669961
reply