Will BIP110 confiscate your coin?

[PepeLapiu]

(useless retarded personal attacks removed)

So far, you have supported the removal of a spam filter, glorified spam as "being easy to validate", rejected the reality that ordinal spam pay half the price of monetary users, all while claiming "the fees are the best filter", and you have rejected any and all attempt at resisting spam.

You have no credibility, Greg.

But I'm curious Greg. What are the ways you find are acceptable to fight against spam? Since your coretard mind rejects every anti-spam ideas so far, what are your suggestions now?

[BitGoba]

Bitcoin is a monetary protocol and money. It is not crypto.It has nothing to do with the crypto industry, which is a scam. Scammers have drained the market with endless scams and shitcoins. Fewer people are falling for them now, so they are trying to attach their scams to Bitcoin

I only support changes that make Bitcoin better as money.

[dkbit98]

There is a clear statement that BIP-110 could result in RISKS that would make coins frozen or lost:
https://bip110.org/#is-there-any-risk-of-funds-being-frozen-or-lost

Bitcoin is a monetary protocol and money. It is not crypto.It has nothing to do with the crypto industry, which is a scam. Scammers have drained the market with endless scams and shitcoins. Fewer people are falling for them now, so they are trying to attach their scams to Bitcoin

Then why are you now promoting Citrea crap and their shitcoins?
It's not a scam when you are doing it right? 

[PepeLapiu]

There is a clear statement that BIP-110 could result in RISKS that would make coins frozen or lost:
https://bip110.org/#is-there-any-risk-of-funds-being-frozen-or-lost

Here is what they say:

In theory, yes, but this proposal goes to great pains to avoid affecting any known use cases. Funds are completely unaffected if they don't use Taproot, use Taproot in standard ways, or can be spent via keypath or other expected Tapleaves. Additionally, UTXOs created before activation are permanently exempt from the new rules — they can be spent at any time without restriction. A separate two-week grace period between lock-in and activation also provides general preparation time.

The operative word here is "in theory".
But in reality, and practically, it's very unlikely.
You would have to be knowledgeable enough to know to do an op_if in Taproot, all while living under a rock and completely unaware of the controversy and new rules.
You would also need to use an outdated wallet, or one that refuses to update to the new temporary rules.
And you would have to do both the commit and the redeem during the BIP110 one year period.

And after you do all that, your coin would still only be unspendable for the duration of BIP110.

You'd have to delete your keys to actually lose your coin.

So yeah, in theory it's possible, but extremely unlikely.

Op_if in Taproot is something we need to get rid of. And as far as I am concerned, we should get rid of all Tapscript in Taproot. Bundling Tapscript with Taproot was not a good thing.

The reality is that there is not a single tutorial out there that teaches you to delete your keys after doing some convoluted inheritance scheme. So you have to find and read and understand a github page in order to think "Hey, it's a great idea to delete my private keys as part of protecting my coin."

Nobody is that stupid, not even Greg Maxwell.

[dkbit98]

The operative word here is "in theory".
But in reality, and practically, it's very unlikely.

It's not impossible, and that means there is a chance for something to happen, especially with quantum computers in near future.

[PepeLapiu]

The operative word here is "in theory".
But in reality, and practically, it's very unlikely.

It's not impossible, and that means there is a chance for something to happen, especially with quantum computers in near future.

Correct, it's not impossible. This is why it's wise to do it only temporarily, in case BIP110 does break something.

The temporary aspect of it, I consider wise. Just imagine if we had done Taproot as a temporary upgrade. We could have fixed a lot of problems before making it permanent. Taproot's "speedy trial" was completely useless.

I think, in the future, all upgrades should be temporary.

[ertil]

This is why it's wise to do it only temporarily, in case BIP110 does break something.

It won't be temporary. Even now, before BIP-110 activated, you want to use stricter rules, by activating next BIPs: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5582070

Just imagine if we had done Taproot as a temporary upgrade.

Do you understand, what would happen, if Taproot would expire? Then, all P2TR coins would be spendable by anyone, without any signatures, unconditionally. Which means, that all users, who used P2TR, would lose their coins in that way or another. Because what can be done with a coin, which is spendable by anyone? You can let it to be stolen, or burn it, by throwing it out of circulation. In both cases, real users lose their funds.

Taproot's "speedy trial" was completely useless.

Then, why Luke wanted to mandatory activate Taproot, even if it wouldn't be supported by miners? Why he wanted to do that in the same way, as he is doing it for BIP-110 now? Why he created a separate client, which forced Taproot activation, while in Core, it could simply fail, if not enough miners would signal?

If you are disappointed, because of Taproot, then go ask him, why he forced it in his client. If Taproot would fail, then Luke's client would fork into a minority chain back then. Speedy trial actually pushed both clients to the same chain.

I think, in the future, all upgrades should be temporary.

If they would be, then it would be risky to use any new features. Which means, that all users would just stick with P2PK, because it is the only address type, which is present since 2009, and is used absolutely everywhere.

So, do you think, that everyone should stick with uncompressed P2PKs? Because even compressed ones is a feature, which was discovered later. Satoshi used only P2PK uncompressed keys, which is why he hashed them, to make addresses shorter.

[ABCbits]

And as far as I am concerned, we should get rid of all Tapscript in Taproot. Bundling Tapscript with Taproot was not a good thing.

You don't want smaller TX size (since Tapscript let you reveal only 1 branch rather than whole script) which allow people save fee on Bitcoin TX and allow more TX on a block?

I think, in the future, all upgrades should be temporary.

All upgrades? i can't image new address and quantum resistant cryptography only available/can be used temporarily.