By Bitcoin मासिक - 3 महिन्यांपूर्वी - वाचनाची वेळ: 7 मिनिटे
Meme, or Not to Meme: CAT
गेल्या दोन दशकांपासून इंटरनेटवर मांजरींचे वर्चस्व आहे हे पाहता, मांजरीच्या मीम्सने शेवटी इंटरनेटवर कब्जा केला हे खरोखरच आश्चर्यकारक आहे का? 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.
Taproot Wizards मधील Rijndael, “artificer” आणि काही लोकांपैकी एक, जर एकमेव व्यक्ती नाही तर, प्रत्यक्षात OP_CAT सोबत टिंकरिंग आणि खेळताना वापरातील उदाहरणे तयार करण्यासाठी, OP_CAT आधारित करार स्क्रिप्टचा डेमो तयार केला आहे.
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_OPCAT_OPCAT_OPCATCOP_SWAP _CAT OP_CAT OP_CAT 54617053696768617368 OP_SHA256 OP_DUP OP_ROT OP_CAT OP_CAT OP_SHA256 424950303334302f6368616c6_656OP_6765UP256 OP_79 667ef9dcbbac55a06295ce870b07029bfcdb2dce28d959f2815b16f81798 OP_DUP OP_DUP OP_TOALTSTACK 2 OP_ROLL OP_CAT OP_CAT OP_CAT_OPCAT_OPCAT_OPCAT_256OPCAT_1 OP_FROMALTSTACK वर OP_DUP 2 OP_CAT OP_ROT OP_EQUALVERIFY 79 OP_CAT 667be9ef55dcbbac06295a870ce07029b2bfcdb28dce959d2815f16b81798 OP_CHECKSIG
CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY चे अनुकरण करण्यासाठी हेच लागते. CTV वापरून समतुल्य स्क्रिप्ट फक्त असेल:
CTV.
मी विचारतो की, OP_CAT सारख्या मूलभूत टेम्प्लेट कराराचे अनुकरण करताना (ज्या गोष्टी वैध होण्यासाठी ठराविक अटींची पूर्तता करण्यासाठी खर्चाच्या व्यवहाराची आवश्यकता असते) अशा गोष्टींचे काय मूल्य आहे? टेम्प्लेट करारात लॉक केलेले आउटपुट खर्च करणाऱ्या व्यवहारांवर टेम्पलेट लागू करणाऱ्या योजना कशा हाताळायच्या हे आम्हाला माहित आहे आणि त्यांच्यासाठी अनेक प्रस्ताव आहेत. CTV, TXHASH, OP_TX, आणि अगदी APO देखील अतिरिक्त 64 बाइट्सच्या खर्चावर व्यवहाराच्या लॉकिंग आउटपुटमध्ये स्वाक्षरी भरून या योजनांचे अनुकरण करू शकतात.
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.
जोखीम कमी करणे
व्हॅक्यूममध्ये OP_CAT "फक्त दोन स्ट्रिंग जोडणे" म्हणून विकले जाते आणि अनेक मीम्स "ते धोकादायक कसे असू शकते?" असे बनवण्याचा प्रयत्न करतात. हे प्रस्तावाच्या सभोवतालचे एक अत्यंत विचित्र कथा आहे आणि ते स्क्रिप्टच्या इतर विद्यमान आणि भविष्यातील पैलूंशी कसे संवाद साधते याकडे पूर्णपणे दुर्लक्ष करते.
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 भव्य design space for what it is possible to do with Bitcoin.
एक ठोस उदाहरण म्हणजे व्यवहारातील विशिष्ट इनपुट आणि आउटपुटच्या रकमेची किंवा भिन्न रकमांमधील संबंध लागू करण्याची क्षमता. CAT तुम्हाला स्टॅकवरील वैयक्तिक तुकड्यांमधून व्यवहार हॅश तयार करण्यास अनुमती देते आणि CSFS तुम्हाला लॉकिंग स्क्रिप्टमधील सार्वजनिक की विरुद्ध त्या व्यवहाराच्या अनियंत्रित तुकड्यांच्या विरूद्ध स्वाक्षरी सत्यापित करण्याची परवानगी देते. हे शेवटी ओपन-एंडेड UTXO ची निर्मिती सक्षम करू शकते जोपर्यंत कोणीही खर्च करू शकतो, जोपर्यंत खर्चाचा व्यवहार विशिष्ट निकष पूर्ण करतो, जसे की विशिष्ट रकमेची नाणी विशिष्ट पत्त्यावर पाठविली जाणे. हे OP_RETURN आधारित मालमत्तेच्या वास्तविकतेसह एकत्र करा आणि हे विकेंद्रीकृत एक्सचेंजेस (DEX) च्या क्षेत्रामध्ये प्रवेश करण्यास सुरवात करते.
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 ते 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: काय करू नये तसेच काय करावे यासंबंधीचे धडे आहेत.
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.
मांजरीने कायमचे बेड्या ठोकल्या
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.
केवळ मेम मोहिमेमुळे हे वास्तव आहे का? कारण लोक अधिक कार्यक्षम आणि उद्देशाने तयार केलेल्या प्रस्तावांकडे लक्ष देण्याऐवजी गोष्टी करण्याच्या अत्यंत अकार्यक्षम माध्यमांसह टिंकर करू इच्छित आहेत? मी नाही म्हणेन.
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.
मूळ स्त्रोत: Bitcoin मासिक