By Bitcoin Revista - acum 3 luni - Timp de citire: 7 minute
Pentru a meme, sau nu pentru a meme: pisica
Este cu adevărat surprinzător, având în vedere că pisicile au dominat în esență internetul în ultimele două decenii, că memele cu pisici au preluat în sfârșit 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” de la Taproot Wizards și unul dintre puținii oameni, dacă nu singura persoană, care se joacă și se joacă cu OP_CAT pentru a construi exemple de cazuri de utilizare, a făcut o demonstrație a unui script de legături bazat pe OP_CAT.
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 OP_CATOP_CATOP_CATOP_CATOP_CATOP_CATOP_CATOP_CATOP_CATOP_CATOP_CATOP_ . 54617053696768617368ce256b256bfcdb424950303334302dce6368616d6f656b6765f256 OP_DUP OP_DUP OP_TOALTSTACK 79 OP_ROLL OP_CAT OP_CAT OP_CAT OP_CAT OP_SHA667 OP_DUP OP_DUP OP_TOALTSTACK _ OP_TOALTSTACK _ OP_TOALTSTACK _ CAT OP_ROT OP_EQUALVERIFY 9 OP_CAT 55be06295ef870dcbbac07029a2ce28b959bfcdb2815dce16d81798f2b256f1 OP_CHECKSIG
Acesta este ceea ce este nevoie pentru a emula CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY. Scriptul echivalent folosind CTV ar fi pur și simplu:
CTV .
Întreb, ce valoare are ceva de genul OP_CAT în emularea cazului de acorduri șablon de bază (lucruri care necesită o tranzacție de cheltuieli pentru a îndeplini anumite condiții definite dinainte pentru a fi valabile) ca acesta? Știm exact cum să gestionăm schemele care impun un șablon pentru tranzacțiile care cheltuiesc o ieșire blocată la un contract de șablon și avem mai multe propuneri pentru acestea. CTV, TXHASH, OP_TX și chiar APO pot emula aceste scheme prin introducerea unei semnături în ieșirea de blocare a unei tranzacții cu prețul a 64 de octeți suplimentari.
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.
Minimizarea riscurilor
În vid, OP_CAT este vândut ca „pur și simplu concatenarea a două șiruri”, iar multe dintre meme încearcă să-l încadreze ca „cum poate fi periculos?” Aceasta este o narațiune extrem de necinstită în jurul propunerii și ignoră complet modul în care interacționează cu alte aspecte existente și viitoare ale scenariului.
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 masiv design space for what it is possible to do with Bitcoin.
Un exemplu concret ar fi potențialul de a impune sume, sau relații între diferite sume, ale intrărilor și ieșirilor specifice într-o tranzacție. CAT vă permite să construiți un hash de tranzacție din bucăți individuale de pe stivă, iar CSFS vă permite să verificați o semnătură împotriva unei chei publice în scriptul de blocare față de părți arbitrare ale acelei tranzacții pe măsură ce este construită. Acest lucru ar putea permite în cele din urmă crearea de UTXO deschise pe care oricine le poate cheltui, atâta timp cât tranzacția de cheltuieli îndeplinește anumite criterii, cum ar fi o anumită cantitate de monede să fie trimisă la o anumită adresă. Combină acest lucru cu realitatea activelor bazate pe OP_RETURN, iar acest lucru începe să intre pe teritoriul schimburilor descentralizate (DEX).
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 la 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: sunt lecții de învățat cu privire la ceea ce NU trebuie să faci, precum și ce să faci.
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.
Încătușat pentru totdeauna de pisică
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.
Este aceasta o realitate în care vrem să intrăm pur și simplu din cauza unei campanii de meme? Pentru că oamenii vor să se chinuiască cu mijloace extrem de ineficiente de a face lucruri în loc să caute prin propuneri mult mai eficiente și concepute special? Aș spune că nu.
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.
Sursă originală: Bitcoin Revistă