Taproot 'concerns'

[gmaxwell]

Thanks for the clarification.
But would Segwit have activated without the initialization of BIP148, or would the miners have continued blocking it?
I believe "another UASF" would have come.

I think bitmain just wanted time to dump their covert-AB only hardware on a willing sucker (like, say, Calvin).

Regardless, the complaint most people that had complaints had about BIP148 was that the timeline of less than two months was kinda nuts. That issue wouldn't have remained...

[aliashraf]

Thanks for the clarification.
But would Segwit have activated without the initialization of BIP148, or would the miners have continued blocking it?
I believe "another UASF" would have come.

I think bitmain just wanted time to dump their covert-AB only hardware on a willing sucker (like, say, Calvin).

As of my understanding, AsicBoost is not defeated by segwit that much. I don't think on-the-fly transaction re-ordering is necessary at all for AsicBoost  while it is exactly what Segwit makes harder.

A hypothetical AsicBoost-only miner machine basically doesn't need and can't change the header on-the-fly as it is received from the pool operator in the most practical cases. I'd conclude that on-the-fly transaction re-ordering efficiency is just important for solo miners with AB-only machines and even for such miners it is absolutely possible to keep their machines busy mining empty blocks in a few seconds window while their cpus are preparing a well-formed header with hundreds of transactions.

[gmaxwell]

Aliashraf, I'm getting a little tired of your posts that demonstrate almost zero understanding and absolutely zero research.  Please take a few minutes to read up on _covert_ asicboost rather than forcing the derailing of this thread with a pointless and off rehashing of material which has been covered elsewhere in depth. If you still don't get it, make a new thread.


[This post should be removed when the derailment is resolved]

[aliashraf]

Aliashraf, I'm getting a little tired of your posts that demonstrate almost zero understanding and absolutely zero research.  Please take a few minutes to read up on _covert_ asicboost rather than forcing the derailing of this thread with a pointless and off rehashing of material which has been covered elsewhere in depth. If you still don't get it, make a new thread.

On the contrary, I've done enough research on this issue, why should you attack me or anybody else here? Are you paying me for my contributions or something?
Stop insulting people please, you are a moderator here for the god's sake, not a troll!

SegWit relates to COVERT AsicBoost because it makes it HARDER for ONE VERSION of on-the-fly tampering of Merkle Root. You claim otherwise? If no, then you owe me an apology.

As of the importance of pools in this regard, and the fact that pool worker machines are not allowed to change Merkle Root, any objections? No? Another apology required!

As of derailing the topic: Was it me or you that started saying things about AB? You? Guess what ... yet another apology required

[DooMAD]

As of derailing the topic: Was it me or you that started saying things about AB? You? Guess what ... yet another apology required

Mentioning something in passing does not derail a topic.  Attempting to focus all the discussion on that thing so that we aren't discussing the original topic anymore is derailing the topic.  Guess which one you're doing.

[aliashraf]

As of derailing the topic: Was it me or you that started saying things about AB? You? Guess what ... yet another apology required

Mentioning something in passing

Please check the previous 2 posts made by Greg then tell me it is 'passing or it is not. People went too far in exaggerating the impact of SegWit on covert AB and I can't help it getting sick with such a superficial discussion in the technical subforum.

By the way, it is a self-moderated thread, the whole derailing thing is up to the original poster to decide about.

[DooMAD]

To get us back on topic, there's an interview published yesterday with Adam Back discussing Schnorr/Taproot at the ~1:36:00 mark:

https://twitter.com/crypto_voices/status/1231187957832409088


The interviewer specifically asks about any concerns he might have, but Dr. Back didn't seem to raise any.  They briefly alluded to a potential dispute that might arise at some point later in time over where to draw the line over privacy (naturally falling in the "privacy = good" side of the argument), but nothing in regard to concerns over the BIPs themselves.