• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Similarly, there is fundamental analysis based Bitcoin trading where traders invest their money for longer duration to reap the profits that they see as they prescribe to the idea that the cryptocurrency has bright future. And there will only ever be 21 million in the future. This question, I guess, is for Murch, Greg or t-bast, but are there other layer 2 protocols that we see having an interest in contributing to some of these discussions? Greg Sanders: Yeah, I can speak to that a bit. Greg Sanders: Well, statechains is another thing that needs - It’s any time-based contract, right? Greg Sanders: Well, with penalties, maybe it’s less of a problem, but also pinning is a problem in lots of other scenarios too, Discreet Log Contracts (DLCs), any sort of time-sensitive contract, right? Greg Sanders: Yeah, we’d be able to get rid of that message, the update fee that t-bast was talking about, which would be great post to read. Mike Schmidt: Greg had mentioned DLCs as another potential protocol or different types of protocols that should be considering relay policy, mempool, and getting confirmations. I thought in my head, they’ll probably pick a better protocol by the time it actually would be required and ends up being true, so that’s good news.

So, that’s like another level. And so, basically it’s looking at what parts would be worth it to get a first cut of updates to the LN spec, and so there’s some back and forth on that. With future updates to the mempool, hopefully we get around that just basically for free, where any channels that have already updated with v3 and ephemeral anchors will benefit from these other background updates as well. Because it’s one thing to have the code, let’s say, launched and Bitcoin Core nodes get updated, and eventually the network updates enough where you can rely upon it. It’s, I would say, in the garden-path case, where the nice case where your counterparty just went offline and won’t talk to you anymore, it would become more expensive to resolve these HTLCs in an unpinnable way. But before Bitcoin, intermediaries were required because there was no other way to trust the legitimacy of the digital transactions. Bastien Teinturier: Yeah, I think also one of the reasons we don’t see pinning is that really, it’s harder to pin right now and make it work your while, because right now, commitment transactions do pay some fees. Bastien Teinturier: Okay, so for now, the first thing we are doing with taproot is just moving the funding transactions, the channel output to use the MuSig2 taproot output.

It’s also just a life headache, but it’s a judgment call, because right now, LN kind of works on firm handshakes, nobody’s attacking each other, nobody’s doing channel jamming, but that could all change overnight. Maybe, instagibbs, you can kind of talk to that a bit. Upon successfully creating a trading account, they can add funds to their public wallet address (provided by Binance) to start trading. So, just moving the funding transactions to use MuSig2 already has a very nice benefit for all users, and it’s a good way to start experimenting with taproot with MuSig2 before moving on to PTLC. And if mempool stays full with a very high feerate for a few months, then there’s an incentive to start attacking, and I think we should be ready for that before it happens. But that doesn’t mean they won’t be ready for the next time this happens. When it was three months ago and the mempool was really full for a long while with high-fee transactions, then there was an opportunity to do pinning, but I don’t think any attackers were really ready to actually do that.

The article specifically finds that that the share of renewables that power the network decreased from 41.6% to 25.1% following the mining crackdown in China during the Spring of 2021. Miners previously had access to a substantial amount of renewables (during a limited part of the year) when they were still in China (i.e. hydropower during the wet season in the summer months), but this was lost when they were forced to move to countries such as the U.S. Critics of Bitcoin point to limited usage by ordinary consumers and merchants, but that same criticism was leveled against PCs and the Internet at the same stage. Bitcoin is still a new and fluctuating currency that is not accepted by many merchants, so the use of Bitcoin may seem mostly experimental. Basically, I think there’s some basic agreement on this line that we’re shooting for with package relay, v3, and ephemeral anchors, where the commitment transaction can get a very nice cleanup and improvement and kind of confirmation requirements, while the rest, there’s still some pinning vectors beyond that with HTLC transactions. Those, in some cases, would still be tenable because from the feedback I got basically it’s, fixing it, does it bridge too far?