Context is needed here. Users and wallets will have almost a year to correct their behavior before the fork activates in late August. All instances prior to the fork will be grandfathered in, and those tx with op_if in Taproot done during the fork will be redeamable once the fork expires.
I know you're just going to ignore this or delete my reply because you have on the several other occasions it's been explained.
The only posts of yours I've "ignored" where those where I was not able to answer after the censorship Nazis locked the tread. And I have not deleted any of your posts where I was able to do so. How about you Greg? Have you deleted any of my posts, or asked someone else to do so? Hmmm? Greg?
Be polite, be respectful, and your posts in this tread will never be deleted or ignored by me. But politeness and respect are not your strong suits. So I know it's a tall order, especially for you. But I have faith in you, Greg!
But for the benefit of anyone who hasn't seen where this is pointed out:
For security some people have made transactions which are timelocked for the future, so that e.g. kidnappers can't force them to make payments or so that the transactions for inheritance will only be valid in the future. After making the transaction they can delete their private keys so that they can't be forced to make any more alternatives, or they can simply lose them -- an eventuality that the presigned transaction was created to pay for. These presigned transactions can pay to any valid address, for example a 4 of 8 taproot multisig that has a tree depth of more than 7 levels (e.g. family members/friends/heirs).
It should be noted that these are crazy complicated and experimental cutting edge transactions. So much so that I don't believe anyone has commited any serious amount of bitcoin to such complicated multisig.
BIP110 would functionally destroy these coins. They can't be moved in advance no matter how much notice given due to the timelock.
This is a lie. Either you didn't even read the BIP110 documentation, or you've been fed bad information, or you are deliberately lying. Any such preexisting multisig with op_if in Taproot will be grandfathered in and fully functional.
BIP110 only affects such transaction constructed AFTER the fork is activated. And here, I site the BIP110 documentation, which you would do well to read for yourself:
[quote link=https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0110.mediawiki#user-content-Specification]
Inputs spending UTXOs that were created before the activation height are exempt from the new rules. Once the softfork expires, UTXOs of all heights are once again unrestricted.
[/quote]
So ONLY UTXOs created during the temporary fork will be unspendable, and only for the duration of the fork.
They outputs created by them would not be grandfathered because they would be new outputs at the time the timelock expires rather than old.
Yes, only UTXOs created during the temporary fork with be unspendablre, if they are in contravention of the new rules, and only during the duration of fork.
If we wish to remove a op_code, such as op_if, this is a sensiblewaty to do it.
I find it very unlikely that anyone who is using bitcoin in such an advanced and complex manner would not be aware of the controversy over it, and completely unaware of the new fork.
Txs created before the fork will be grandfathered in.
Txs created during the fork will only be unspendable for the duration of the fork.
Anyone using op_if in Taproot, or such other way, have not been documented or reported yet, spare spammers of course.
The limitations on script in BIP110 go far beyond op_if, basically outlawing all but the simplest payments.
I'm of the opinion that BIP110 doesn't go far enough. When I become BTC CEO, I'll completely cancel both Taproot and Segwit. Back to page 1. And only reintroduce parts of Segwit and Taproot that don't introduce more spam.
Victims of this outcome, even if they could do something about this (e.g. no timelock in their case) won't because there is (1) no mechanism to warn them that the network is preparing to confiscate their assets (2) no expectation or caution as to the risk because the ability to bury your coins in your yard and have no on take them is a major selling point for Bitcoin
In order to do a tx that becomes unspendable for the duration of the fork, you would have to be a very advanced user, while simultaneously living in a cave and be completely unaware of the controversy and new rules. And you'd have to be using an outdated wallet or a wallet that refuses to align their code with the new rules.
Most likely, they are spammers, not monetary users.
Bitcoin is supposed to be safe to use without being constantly vigilant unlike a bank safe deposit box
Ask your bank if they are willing to do NFTs and dickbutt.jpegs. Ask your
likely wouldn't be concerned even if they *knew* of BIP110 because it's authors and advocates like you are consistently and voluminously lying about the risks and magnitude of the reduction.
Speakingiof liars, you are one of those wh's been saying for the kadt 4 years that the fees are the filter.
If I pay $1 in fees on legacy address, a monetary user will pay 50¢ for the same size tx on Segwit. Not an ordinal spammer will pay 25¢ for the sane amount of data.
Given that spammer get a far bigger discount, who are the fees really filtering?
And even if they were somehow aware of 110, were aware that it would destroy their coins, .. they still certainly don't have a year of notice because even today mere months before BIP110's deadline it's clear to basically everyone that it won't have any impact on Bitcoin.
The most important aspect of BIP110 is that it sends a signal toBlockStreamm mouthpieces, core devs, spam miners, and spammers that their shit will no longer be tolerated.
After BIP110, more anti-spam measures will be implemented. In a mouse infested barn, BIP110 will Bethe first cat introduced to the barn.
Even today standard descriptor wallet software will happily and silently generate BIP110 unspendable addresses. The authors and proponents of BIP110 have done nothing to address this, they're too busy lying about there being no risk to anyone.
If you read the link to the BIP above, you will see they fully admit the risks of BIP110.
And in the following video, Mechanic openly tells his view of BIP110. And he asks that if he's wrong, please contact him and explain. If you don't want to contact Mechanic directly, address your reply to me and I will forward it.
https://youtu.be/JPE7X_q3A7AYou seem to have no idea what BIP110 does-- it limits script sizes to the bare minimum (a big problem since existing PQ signatures are huge) and removes most softforking mechanisms like OP_SUCCESS that make it safe to deploy new script functionality (such as new signature systems).
Only for a year. After the temporary measures are over, we can fix Taproot and reintroduce or modify what we can. And no stupid "speedy trial" bullshot this time.
absolutely nobody has come out and said they are using op_if in Taproot in some risking complicated script with more than 7 leaves dept.
Yes they have. I am using functionality BIP110 disables. Other people are too
You and other people? How do I know that "the other people" are all involved with BlockStream
** cought - Epstein - Vought - Island - cought **
but we have no way of knowing how many total people would be effected
This is correct. Due to the pilrivacy settings, we can't know how many people would be affected. We do know they'd be advanced users, and likely aware of the controversy. We know that outside of you and your Blockstream friehds, there has not been a single reported user of those features.
Since we can't be sure if anyone is using those features without spsmmy intentions, the temporary aspect of BIP110 is golden.
and the people who would lose their coins generally have no way to know that you deranged thieves are coming for their coins
Just circulate a memo at BlocjStream and they all will be aware.
People have spoken up and said they'll be effected.
Names?
The authors (as well as promoters like you) have been told over and over again, and they simply ignore them or lob disgusting accusations at them.
I knew you'd be incapable of politeness and respect. And I still didn't delete your post. Imagine that!
Now just imagine if core had merged Luke's ordinal filter instead of blowing up an existing spam filter. We wouldn't be in this mess, now would we?
