pull down to refresh

0 sats \ 8 replies \ @justin_shocknet 21h \ parent \ on: Sunday Survey: Was Taproot a good thing for Bitcoin? bitcoin
... 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.
write
preview
0 sats \ 7 replies \ @nout 19h
I guess I'm special. It's been quite long time since I last used anything onchain that's not taproot. The only non-taproot is when using lightning.
(just to highlight for other readers - Taproot is now 10% by output value and 20% by output count)
reply
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @justin_shocknet 18h
Could go all-in with Taproot Channels... why the hesitation?
reply
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @nout 18h
Simple Taproot Channels are just being developed, there's no actual prod solution yet. Acinq is making the most progress here from what I can tell.
reply
77 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 17h
there's no actual prod solution yet
All my LN channels are STC (where is possible with the peer) from long time ago. And are perfectly fine.
Even chantools is supporting them now.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nout 15h
Yeah, I realized this below too. Brainfart on my side.
reply
77 sats \ 2 replies \ @justin_shocknet 18h
LND has had them since v17
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @nout 18h
I completely forgot that LND actually did them. Well, so I think I'll be on taproot channels soon :)
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 9h
Not all your counterparties will support it. For example, last time I tried to open a private channel with SN it was not supported.
reply