Everything is good for Bitcoin in the context of learning and failing forward... perhaps the question then isn't optimally worded. Was it a failure or a triumph?
"It's bad but could have been worse and now we know should know better" is just a positive interpretation of failure.
I think that the activation was a failure, not as in fail to activate but the implementation - in Core - clearly had unintended side effects, so it was activated too soon.
For the feature itself, it's only a failure if someone other than me spends my p2tr coin due to a bug or cryptographic weakness, so that's too soon to tell. For example, if the quantum doomers are right and this turned out to be the last protocol enhancement, then it could become a failure in the future, but I'm not particularly worried about this right now.
I'm not a fan of the speedy trial thing, if that's what you mean with vulnerability. It puts pressure on people to make a decision quickly and that's not what Bitcoin imho should be about. Slow and steady - there was no need to rush, and it would have been totally fine if it would have activated later without rush.
I wonder though: will mining pools champion L1 purity? I don't really expect them to.
More the general mind virus imo but yea speedy trial is part of that
Yea miners are not a last line of defense, if anything they're more of a liability, high time preference can easily manifest itself there due to the economics. Stupidity is a given, Bitcoin only works because an overwhelming majority of them have to be stupid all at the same time to fuck it up.
Unfortunately bip-8 lockinontimeout is the protocol upgradoors wet dream because now you can speedy trial with a preset outcome unless someone does uasf. That stacks all the chips in favor of the smart contract pushing dev.
If I look at the "arguments for" covenants the other day, its basically "but some BTC is locked up by bitgo to be used on Ethereum." Its like proposing that every dollar bill needs a gambling chip in it because there's so much laying around casino vaults.
Yea proponents should do more write-ups like that so people can see how retarded they are and track the narrative pivots over time... Sunlight is the best disinfectant
There's been 0 benefit to Bitcoin's value prop as money.
All it has achieved is giving ethead adjacent/script kiddies a morale boost via precedent, such that they'll be able to continue pushing to make Bitcoin more like Ethereum. Incentives for development have completely shifted to pet-usecase centralized application stacks.
Abject disaster.
Nobody voting yes is actually keeping a meaningful amount of Bitcoin in a Taproot address, can all but guarantee they're bandwagon jumping hypocrites.
Nobody voting yes is actually keeping a meaningful amount of Bitcoin in a Taproot address, can all but guarantee they're bandwagon jumping hypocrites.
My hot wallet is, by utxo count, 97% taproot. My cold storage is 100% taproot but I did that much too early and should have waited for greater adoption and rolled over to a new p2wpkh setup instead.
I remember p2sh taking forever to get used too though, would you say that that was a disaster too?
Between you and @nout we've found the bulk of Taproot outputs....
Why do you use it? What's it doing it wasn't before?
The disaster is in the precedent it set, that useless forks can be astroturfed into activation... And now every shitcoiner that thinks Bitcoin should be an application stack is pushing for new ops
On hot wallet basically because its what wasabi coinjoin does most for smaller sized outputs, so it's just a thing for joining the larger anonset. I do think that this is a more recent development; iirc i used to have more p2wpkh before. I don't really care either way on hot. Most of it gets spent through LN often sooner rather than later.
On cold wallet, the honest answer is because i thought it was cool that an observer doesn't know whether its a script or a pk output. Which is, I admit, a dumb reason and i should have skipped it until at least there was a battle tested FROST implementation I could use. So yeah... feel free to call me a retard on that one.
oh no... I have to get to work today so won't take the privacy bait ;)
but yea with hot its fine for experiments
Cold ... frost ... retard
Privacy again oof...
FROST is an interesting concept though, have looked at it in context of nostr identity re: @bitcoinplebdev's project... but not convinced yet on the Bitcoin side it's any better than multisig or shamir, I also don't spend much time thinking about vaulting products... yet. I do anticipate getting into that rabbit hole for ShockWallet eventually. The ultimate irony would be if I'm the one to actually make it useful.
For me it slightly lowered my fees, from usage standpoint it's exactly the same UX across the board and then I'm happy if there are some privacy or scaling capabilities that this enables for me or others in future.
To be clear this is why in the survey I voted "Mixed (please comment)". While I'm using taproot across the board (apparently in some cases also in LN context), it has not been a complete game changer. There is a recent uptick in usage, which may be a good sign, but we will have to see.
I think that's the crux of any argument, where the bar for introducing unknown unknowns is.
Since it hasn't been a game changer, resulting in lukewarm adoption at best so far, proponents got it through on pure speculation and hype rather than substance and that is a very dangerous precedent.
Yes, I agree with the argument and different people will have a different tolerance here. Some things are hard to predict and take time to mature.
My guess would be that in 2 years from now there will be much wider taproot adoption with at least 2 notably taproot-only beneficial usecases being deployed and used. At that point, if that happens, I would vote YES.
... Or even a material amount across all addresses total.
Proponents would seem to be either afraid of using it, or lied about their urgent use-cases all along.
On a purely relative basis, a proponents burden of proof is that they're no less "safe" than address types with a longer track record... But they won't put any skin in the game on their experiment.
Privacy is paradoxical, so I don't think anything should ever tout privacy as a feature or benefit, it should be incidental to something superior for its own reasons.
Things like Monero and Tor for example, privacy is the feature benefit, but that also makes them less private because it attracts a smaller anonset (retards) because they're otherwise useless, and more relative surveillance because it's a honeypot/target rich with said retards.
Privacy as a feature also leads users to stray from privacy practices due to a false sense of security. These undiscerning users fulfill the paradox of deanonymizing private systems through improper practices.
Taproot channels are often cited as a benefit to Lightning, but to your point nobody cares so use is negligible... and if we did get a flood of new privacy focused users, they'd quickly deanonymize an otherwise private network today through centralized swap services and ignorance of utxo management.
Absolutely! From trust-minimized BTC bridging with BitVM to more scalable and private multisig with FROST and MuSig2, Taproot has given us some really great improvements.
lockinontimeoutis the protocol upgradoors wet dream because now you can speedy trial with a preset outcome unless someone does uasf. That stacks all the chips in favor of the smart contract pushing dev.