From: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo•com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Taproot (and graftroot) complexity
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2020 20:40:27 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2d9970d8-209d-7223-6564-ad858dce5981@mattcorallo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABaSBaxgdfeyPrnaJD+Gs-5agV4sX+b66ZA6AfkjiHvuE0JSXA@mail.gmail.com>
Responding purely to one point as this may be sufficient to clear up
lots of discussion:
On 2/9/20 8:19 PM, Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Is Taproot just a probability assumption about the frequency and
> likelihood of
> the signature case over the script case? Is this a good assumption? The BIP
> only goes as far as to claim that the advantage is apparent if the outputs
> *could be spent* as an N of N, but doesn't make representations about
> how likely
> that N of N case would be in practice compared to the script paths. Perhaps
> among use cases, more than half of the ones we expect people to be doing
> could be
> spent as an N of N. But how frequently would that path get used?
> Further, while
> the *use cases* might skew toward things with N of N opt-out, we might
> end up in
> a power law case where it's the one case that doesn't use an N of N opt
> out at
> all (or at a de minimis level) that becomes very popular, thereby making
> Taproot
> more costly then beneficial.
Its not just about the frequency and likelihood, no. If there is a
clearly-provided optimization for this common case in the protocol, then
it becomes further more likely that developers put in the additional
effort required to make this possibility a reality. This has a very
significant positive impact on user privacy, especially those who wish
to utilize more advanced functionality in Bitcoin. Further, yes, it is
anticipated that the N of N case is possible to take in the vast
majority of deployed use-cases for advanced scripting systems, ensuring
that it is maximally efficient to do so (and thereby encouraging
developers to do so) is a key goal in this work.
Matt
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-09 20:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-09 20:19 Bryan Bishop
2020-02-09 20:22 ` [bitcoin-dev] An alternative deployment path for taproot technology (Re: Taproot (and graftroot) complexity) Bryan Bishop
2020-02-09 20:24 ` [bitcoin-dev] Taproot public NUMS optimization " Bryan Bishop
2020-02-14 21:21 ` Jeremy
2020-02-09 20:40 ` Matt Corallo [this message]
2020-02-09 22:32 ` [bitcoin-dev] Taproot (and graftroot) complexity Antoine Riard
2020-02-09 20:47 ` [bitcoin-dev] Taproot (and graftroot) complexity (reflowed) Bryan Bishop
2020-02-10 0:15 ` David A. Harding
2020-02-10 16:28 ` Jonas Nick
2020-02-14 20:07 ` Jeremy
2020-02-14 22:36 ` David A. Harding
2020-02-18 23:29 ` Pieter Wuille
2020-02-10 0:20 ` [bitcoin-dev] Taproot (and graftroot) complexity Anthony Towns
2020-02-10 6:27 ` ZmnSCPxj
[not found] <<20200210002011.lelhcdmjejmoh6xv@erisian.com.au>
2020-09-19 7:13 ` Jay Berg
2020-09-19 8:46 ` Jay Berg
2020-09-19 12:52 Jay Berg
2020-09-20 3:23 ` Lloyd Fournier
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2d9970d8-209d-7223-6564-ad858dce5981@mattcorallo.com \
--to=lf-lists@mattcorallo$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox