21 sats \ 3 replies \ @didiplaywell OP 23 Jul \ parent \ on: Why do Taproot gets so much hate?? bitcoin
If that's part of the reason, then it's childish to say the least. It's the Open Source world, there's nothing like a "ripoff" of anything, that's precisely the reason "forking" is an in-built functionality. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Despite that, so far I have read about RGB in their own documentation, the projects are nothing alike, for RGB is an L2 project that goes way beyond Taproot current goals, so it's fairly safe from Taproot and it's to RGB to prove to be a superior contendent. Other than that you can't get mad at Taproot for achieving goals first, that's high-school level immaturity.
then it's childish to say the least. It's the Open Source world, there's nothing like a "ripoff" of anything,
True, but imagine you were a solo developer working on a passion project and a well-funded multi-million dollar company came along and "forked" your project and then used their considerable marketing muscle to lead the world to think they had some great new invention.
You would probably be asking yourself....why didn't they just contribute to my project (monetarily + code)....why just rip me off?
(Note: I'm not saying this is what happened, I'm simply pointing out that there are human stories behind all these projects)
reply
I fully agree that in such a situation I would be pissed at such shitty attitude, but not angered nor resented, simply because those are the upfront rules of the game you accept the second you play by the OSS rules. And it's not a bad thing, because if you made your project OSS sharing it with no market scheme behind, then either you're naive (besides being well intentioned), or you just want to see it happen, in which case you should be happy that a company made it a reality without you having to make further efforts. Everyone wins.
reply
Using Brave search AI...
Based on the provided information, here are the key differences and similarities between Taro and RGB:
Similarities:
Both Taro and RGB aim to enable the issuance and transfer of assets on the Bitcoin network, with a focus on scalability and privacy.
They share conceptual similarities in their approaches to achieving this goal.
Differences:
Smart Contract Focus: RGB has always been a smart contracts system, whereas Taro is a token protocol with "probable support of smart contracts."
Implementation: RGB has released reviewable code, while Taro is still in the specification phase, backed by Lightning Labs, a reputable team in the Lightning Network ecosystem.
Asset Model: Taro uses the UTXO model, which is more secure and private due to avoidance of key reuse and lack of balance information revelation. RGB's asset solution is not specified.
Scalability: Taro leverages Taproot and the Lightning Network for scalability, while RGB's approach is unclear.
Asset Types: Taro enables the issuance of non-fungible assets (collectibles) and assets, whereas RGB's focus is on smart contracts and asset solutions.
Plagiarism Claims:** Some sources suggest that RGB developers have accused Taro of plagiarizing their protocol without giving credit. However, others argue that Taro is conceptually similar due to the limited number of paths to achieve asset issuance on Bitcoin, and that Taro uses Tapscript to do more than RGB did.
In summary, while both Taro and RGB aim to enable asset issuance and transfer on Bitcoin, they differ in their implementation, asset model, scalability approach, and asset types. The plagiarism claims remain unclear, with some sources suggesting that Taro borrowed ideas from RGB, while others argue that the similarities are due to the shared goal of asset issuance on Bitcoin.
reply