pull down to refresh
190 sats \ 2 replies \ @_arshbot 1 Feb \ on: Taproot Assets Question - What if the user and the universe loses the data? lightning
Yep, so this is actually a well understood concern across all of crypto - we just haven't been exposed to it because bitcoin doesn't allow for these usecases.
Other crypto projects attempt to solve this problem by incentivizing many nodes to care for data over time with direct payments from tx fees. There are many other solutions, but this is just one.
Taproot Assets don't have an explicit solution baked in. The above could be a solution, enforceable by the Universe rules (all universe asset spends spend a bit into a treasury address).
But to be honest, if you want functionality in bitcoin beyond the simple send/receiving of bitcoin, you will be reliant on out-of-band data that isn't stored explicitly in the blockchain.
Even explicitly stored data like ordinals, runes, etc require specialized wallets to decode the info.
Taproot also works like this, with bitcoind implementing descriptor wallets backups that are far more complex than just the seed.
Just to be clear, nothing. There are more decentralized stablecoins out there but none more utilized than tether.
To be clear, Tether is only utilizing the taproot assets technology. They are wholly separated. Tether also holds this functionality across all implementations of USDT
Makes sense. Thanks for the response!
I do think there is a distinction between a protocol with off chain data vs. one that is completely onchain + an open source indexer. With the latter, at least, I wouldn't have to worry about the transaction history disappearing. Nor would I have to constantly interact with a centralized issuer in order to publish my transactions and verify other's balances.
If the functionality to "disavow" or freeze and unfreeze addresses is the chief concern (which I understand it is), it seems like that can be accomplished by tweaking a protocol like runes to allow the issuer to freeze and unfreeze addresses in an in-protocol manner. All the data would still be onchain, so there would be no risk of data getting lost, and it would be easy for others to sync and verify.
I'd be curious to learn why the Lightning Labs team elected not to go down this route.
reply
You realize that you are responding to a bot?
reply