By Bitcoin Žurnalas - prieš 3 mėnesius - Skaitymo laikas: 7 minutės
„Meme“, ar ne „Meme“: katė
Ar tikrai stebėtina, atsižvelgiant į tai, kad katės iš esmės dominavo internete pastaruosius du dešimtmečius, kad kačių memai pagaliau užvaldė 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“ iš „Taproot Wizards“ ir vienas iš nedaugelio žmonių, jei ne vienintelis, kuris iš tikrųjų gudrauja ir žaidžia su OP_CAT, kad sukurtų naudojimo atvejų pavyzdžius, sukūrė OP_CAT pagrįsto sutarties scenarijaus demonstracinę versiją.
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_OPATCATCATC _OP_OPCATCATC _CAT OP_CAT OP_CAT 54617053696768617368 OP_SHA256 OP_DUP OP_ROT OP_CAT OP_CAT OP_SHA256 424950303334302f6368616c 6be656ef6765dcbbac256a79ce667b9bfcdb55dce06295d870f07029b2f28 OP_DUP OP_DUP OP_TOALTSTACK 959 OP_ROLL OP_CAT OP_CAT _OPHAWAPS2815OP_CAT OP_CAT _OPHACATCAT OP_CAT OP_FROMALTSTACK OP_DUP 16 OP_CAT OP_ROT OP_EQUALVERIFY 81798 OP_CAT 2be256ef1dcbbac2a79ce667b9bfcdb55dce06295d870f07029b2 OP_CHECKSIG
To reikia norint mėgdžioti CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY. Lygiavertis scenarijus naudojant CTV būtų tiesiog toks:
STV.
Klausiu, kokia yra tokio dalyko kaip OP_CAT vertė imituojant pagrindinių šablonų susitarimų atvejį (dalykus, reikalaujančius, kad išlaidų operacija atitiktų tam tikras iš anksto nustatytas sąlygas, kad būtų galiojantis) kaip šis? Mes tiksliai žinome, kaip elgtis su schemomis, pagal kurias taikomas šablonas sandoriams, kai išleidžiama išvestis, užrakinta pagal šablono susitarimą, ir turime joms keletą pasiūlymų. CTV, TXHASH, OP_TX ir net APO gali imituoti šias schemas, įdėdami parašą į operacijos užrakinimo išvestį už papildomus 64 baitus.
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.
Rizikos sumenkinimas
Vakuume OP_CAT parduodamas kaip „tiesiog sujungiantis dvi eilutes“, o daugelis memų bando įrėminti kaip „kaip tai gali būti pavojinga? Tai nepaprastai netikras pasakojimas apie pasiūlymą ir visiškai nepaisoma, kaip jis sąveikauja su kitais esamais ir būsimais scenarijaus aspektais.
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 masinis design space for what it is possible to do with Bitcoin.
Vienas konkretus pavyzdys galėtų būti galimybė užtikrinti konkrečių įvesties ir išvesties sumas arba ryšius tarp skirtingų sumų sandoryje. CAT leidžia sukurti operacijų maišą iš atskirų krūvos dalių, o CSFS leidžia patikrinti parašą pagal viešąjį raktą užrakinimo scenarijuje, palyginti su savavališkais tos operacijos fragmentais, kai jis kuriamas. Tai galiausiai leistų sukurti neribotą UTXO, kurią gali išleisti bet kas, jei išlaidų operacija atitinka tam tikrus kriterijus, pvz., konkretų monetų kiekį, kuris bus išsiųstas konkrečiu adresu. Sujunkite tai su OP_RETURN pagrįsto turto tikrove, ir tai pradės patekti į decentralizuotų biržų (DEX) teritoriją.
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 į 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: yra pamokų, kurias reikia išmokti apie tai, ko NEGALIMA daryti ir ką daryti.
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.
Amžinai surakintas Katės
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.
Ar tai realybė, į kurią norime patekti vien dėl memų kampanijos? Dėl to, kad žmonės nori padirbėti su nepaprastai neefektyviomis priemonėmis, užuot ieškoję daug efektyvesnių ir tikslingesnių pasiūlymų? sakyčiau ne.
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.
Originalus šaltinis: Bitcoin žurnalas