pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 10 replies \ @moonsettler OP 26 Dec 2024 \ parent \ on: LNhance - A soft fork proposal for bitcoin bitcoin
You mean taproot?
And no be clear, taproot enabled clArk.
reply
no, you can do Ark with just segwit + standard multisig, no need for taproot
it's just more expensive because the ASP has to pay for more signatures (and will surely pass those costs onto his or her users, which would annoy everyone)
imo clArk counts as Ark
reply
You need Schnorr signature aggregation for it to be anything but an academic shitpost.
reply
I disagree. It would still have been worth doing Ark even if we never got taproot, because of the cheaper transactions. But no one thought of Ark til after taproot was a thing, so it's a moot point.
reply
MAX_PUBKEYS_PER_MULTISIG = 20
reply
(1) 20 people sharing a utxo is a 10x improvement over lightning...especially when you pile on "there are no inbound capacity issues" and "every user can still 'send to' lightning invoices"
(2) it is perfectly valid and standard to do an m-of-67 in segwit v0 as explained by Pieter Wuille here
reply
If you don't have n-of-n, might as well be using fedi! Anyhow this is cringe and you are being pedantic for no good reason. Taproot made clArk practically viable to a certain scale where Ark might make sense at.
reply
If you don't have n-of-n, might as well be using fedi
You do. If you want a 67-of-67, just set m to 67
this is cringe and you are being pedantic for no good reason
I agree, but I'm having fun so that's a reason
Taproot made clArk practically viable to a certain scale where Ark might make sense at
IMO it would have made perfectly good sense even before taproot. But no one thought of it