OP_CAT & Bitcoin Ossification With Blockstream’s Andrew Poelstra
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 พ.ค. 2024
- Shinobi interviews Andrew Poelstra, Head of Research, at Blockstream to discuss a plan to restore abandoned script functionalities in Bitcoin. They discuss the introduction of a new costing model, the challenges of adapting script to these new functionalities, and the potential of proposals like OP_CAT. They also explore the shift in the Bitcoin developer community’s attitude towards script expressivity and the need for consensus-building among developers. Poelstra addresses the debate over ossification and the conversation concludes with a discussion on the next steps, including writing a proper proposal and getting consensus on the plan.
Read more: “OP_CAT & Bitcoin Ossification With Blockstream’s Andrew Poelstra”
LINK: TBD
Rusty Russell’s Great Script Restoration proposal:
bitcoinmagazine.com/technical...
Recorded on 05/03/24 at BTC++ Austin. - บันเทิง
It would have been helpful if the problem statement was clearly described at the beginning.
Why though? What actual benefits will it bring to sound money? Saying 'spammers are going to spam' is not an argument for making it easier for them.
Can't believe they would F with the base layer. Keeping things simple is the absolute number 1 priority.
The Avirex shirt is so legit.
I wish I understood this.
Just proving that OPCAT works in terms of performance IS NOT ENOUGH . You also need to prove, across each property of money, that the properties of money have not been reduced. Does attaching data reduce fungabiity of certain blocks of Bitcoin? Does attaching data reduce acceptibility of a block of sats? Does the solution reduce portability/speed in any way? Adding "utility" to Bitcoin in NO WAY improves the properties of money. Outside of that, I think changing Bitcoin could be ok.
@21Million - I think you raise a really good point. IMHO (and if I’m understanding things) fungibility should not be affected, Satoshi deliberately created Bitcoin with the capacity to hold data/info. Surely he didn’t intend for that to compromise fungibility(?)
This may be a gross over-simplification, but at the point when someone ‘purchases’ Bitcoin, whatever ‘excess-baggage’ and consequent ‘drag’ might be included, they know what the cost of the transaction is. If they go ahead and in doing so take ownership of some additional thing, that is valuable, then…happy days; but if it contains something they don’t want, they can delete it and revert to a pristine, streamline Btc.
That's bad what Poelstra said about BIP's - he actually said that any random garbage should be accepted as a BIP and allocated a BIP number. Which would reduce the actual credibility of the BIP system to zero and swamp the genuine BIP's with BIP spam. I thus wouldn't trust this guy tampering with the base layer.
why he cover his face? is he a criminal?