By Bitcoin Tydskrif - 3 maande gelede - Leestyd: 7 minute
Aan Meme, Of Nie Aan Meme: Die KAT
Is dit regtig verbasend, aangesien katte die internet die afgelope twee dekades in wese oorheers het, dat katmemes uiteindelik die Bitcoin space as well in the last few weeks? Cats are the most viral meme on the internet, so it's not shocking in the least bit that the Taproot Wizards have leaned into it, reinforced by the trolling Luke over his “dietary choices.”
The question has to be asked though, are meme campaigns really how we want to go about deciding and discussing consensus changes to a protocol as valuable as Bitcoin? I’ve seen numerous music videos, campaigns to go out in the world and “educate” people on OP_CAT, and the whole “Quest” system that Taproot Wizards has launched taking place…but the reality is the vast majority of this content that I have seen has been incredibly superficial.
Rijndael, "Artificer" by Taproot Wizards en een van die min mense, indien nie die enigste persoon nie, wat eintlik met OP_CAT peuter en speel om gebruiksgevalle-voorbeelde uit te bou, het 'n demonstrasie van 'n OP_CAT-gebaseerde verbondskrip gemaak.
This script enforces a specific amount of Bitcoin be sent to a specific address, and by consensus there is no other way to spend these coins except with a transaction that meets those exact conditions. Look at the size of this script:
OP_TOALTSTACK OP_CAT OP_CAT OP_CAT OP_CAT de890a8209d796493ee7bac9a58b62fbced10ccb7311e24f26c461c079ead08c OP_SWAP OP_CAT OP_CAT_OPCAT_OPCAT_OPCAT_OPCAT_OPCAT_OPCAT_OPCAT_OPCAT_OPCAT_OPCAT_ op op _CAT 54617053696768617368be256ef256dcbbac424950303334302a6368616ce6b656bfcdb6765dce256d79f667b9f55 OP_CHECKSIG
Dit is wat dit verg om CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY na te boots. Die ekwivalente skrif wat CTV gebruik, sal eenvoudig wees:
CTV .
Ek vra, wat is die waarde van iets soos OP_CAT in die nabootsing van die geval van basiese sjabloon-verbonde (dinge wat 'n bestedingstransaksie vereis om te voldoen aan sekere voorwaardes wat voor die tyd gedefinieer is om geldig te wees) soos hierdie? Ons weet presies hoe om skemas te hanteer wat 'n sjabloon afdwing op transaksies wat 'n uitset bestee wat aan 'n sjabloonverbond gesluit is, en het verskeie voorstelle daarvoor. CTV, TXHASH, OP_TX en selfs APO kan hierdie skemas naboots deur 'n handtekening in die sluituitvoer van 'n transaksie te vul teen die koste van 'n ekstra 64 grepe.
What actual use is OP_CAT in “experimenting” to meet the needs of a class of use cases that are mature enough in design that there are at least 4 covenant proposals that can handle those use cases with a tiny fraction of the data cost? “Oh, we want to experiment with CAT because it’s flexible!” You want to use 30 OP calls to do something that can be done in one? That is a reason to actually enact a consensus change to Bitcoin? The logic of that is beyond absurd.
Risiko's verminder
In 'n vakuum word OP_CAT verkoop as "eenvoudig aaneenskakeling van twee snare", en baie van die memes probeer dit omraam as "hoe kan dit gevaarlik wees?" Dit is 'n wild onopregte verhaal rondom die voorstel, en dit ignoreer heeltemal hoe dit in wisselwerking is met ander bestaande en toekomstige aspekte van die teks.
In particular CSFS + CAT opens a massive amount of possibilities in terms of what can be done with Bitcoin script, not all of it necessarily positive. CSFS allows you to verify a signature on an arbitrary piece of data in the course of executing a script, and CAT allows you to “glue” different pieces of data together on the stack. These two things create a massiewe design space for what it is possible to do with Bitcoin.
Een konkrete voorbeeld sou die potensiaal wees om bedrae, of verwantskappe tussen verskillende bedrae, van spesifieke insette en uitsette in 'n transaksie af te dwing. CAT laat jou toe om 'n transaksie-hash van individuele stukke op die stapel op te bou, en CSFS laat jou toe om 'n handtekening teen 'n publieke sleutel in die sluitskrif te verifieer teen arbitrêre stukke van daardie transaksie soos dit opgebou word. Dit kan uiteindelik die skepping van oop-einde UTXO's moontlik maak wat enigiemand kan spandeer, solank die bestedingstransaksie aan sekere kriteria voldoen, soos 'n spesifieke hoeveelheid munte wat na 'n spesifieke adres gestuur word. Kombineer dit met die realiteit van OP_RETURN-gebaseerde bates, en dit begin in die gebied van Gedesentraliseerde Uitruilings (DEX) kom.
Some of the worst incentive distortion problems that have come to fruition on other blockchains ultimately stem from the creation of DEXes on those chains. Having direct non-interactive exchange functionality on the blockchain is one of the worst forms of MEV, especially when the potential exists for miners to lock-in their profit across multiple trades in the span of a single block, rather than having to actually carry the risk of a position across multiple blocks before closing it out and realizing profit.
Part of the movement behind Taproot Wizards is “bringing the innovation back.” I.e. that lessons learned in shitcoin land are coming home om Bitcoin, now while I firmly reject the notion that anything useful has been developed on other coins in the last decade other than the basic concept of zero knowledge proofs, this mantra getting louder ignores a massive component of that dynamic even if you disagree with my view there: daar is lesse om te leer oor wat om NIE te doen nie asook wat om te doen.
DEXes are one of the things NOT to do. Nothing has caused as much chaos, volatility in fee dynamics (which we need to smooth out over time for sustainability of second layers), and just all around incentive chaos regarding the base consensus layers of these protocols and their degree of centralization. The idea that we should rush to bring these types of problems to Bitcoin, or exacerbate them by introducing a way to trustlessly embed the bitcoin asset into them in more dynamic and flexible ways, is frankly insane. This to me speaks of large swaths of people who haven’t learned anything from watching what happened on other blockchains in the last half decade or so.
Vir ewig vasgebind deur die kat
Looking at the dynamic above between CSFS + CAT, it is worth pointing out that Reardencode’s recent LNHANCE proposal (CTV + CSFS + Internal Key) offers a path to give us eltoo for Lightning in a way that is actually more blockspace efficient than using APO. If this argumentation, and build out of proof of concepts, winds up winning over Lightning developers who want LN symmetry in order to simplify Lightning channel management and implementation maintenance, we very well could wind up getting CSFS in the process. If OP_CAT were active prior to this, then there is no way to avoid the types of detrimental side effects of the two proposals being combined.
This would hold true for every soft fork proposal going forward if OP_CAT were ever activated. It would be impossible to escape whatever side effects or use cases were enabled by combining OP_CAT with whatever new proposals come in future. On its own OP_CAT is clunky, inefficient, and rather pointless. But in combination with other OPs it begins to get stupidly flexible and powerful. This would be a dynamic we would never be able to escape, and features that might wind up being critically necessary in the future for Bitcoin’s scalability could inescapably come with massive downsides and risks simply because of the existence of OP_CAT.
Is dit 'n werklikheid wat ons wil betree bloot as gevolg van 'n meme-veldtog? Omdat mense wil peuter met wild ondoeltreffende maniere om dinge te doen in plaas daarvan om deur baie meer doeltreffende en doelgeboude voorstelle te kyk? Ek sou nee sê.
Meme campaigns can be fun, I know this. They foster a sense of community and involvement, it's an inherent and inescapable part of the internet and the numerous cultures that exist on it. But this is not how we should be deciding the development process of Bitcoin. They can be fun, and they can even be viciously savage at stabbing directly to the heart of matters people dance around or equivocate on. But they are atrocious at capturing nuance and complexity in many regards.
Trying to steer the consensus of a network like Bitcoin purely based on the value of a meme, rather than reasoned consideration of proposals and their implications, is a disaster waiting to happen. The conservatism and caution of Bitcoin development is what has kept it at the forefront of this space as shitcoins have come and gone, imploding in the consequences of their fly by night carefree development attitude. As much as Bitcoin sorely needs to break out of its current rut of stagnation and lack of forward progress, devolving to uncritical memes and music videos is not how to do that. It risks destroying what made Bitcoin valuable in the first place, its solid and conservative foundation.
Oorspronklike bron: Bitcoin Tydskrif