On anyone-can-spend Pay-to-Taproot outputs before activation

[chejazi]

Ah, a soft fork focused on SegWit transactions. Every time I try and follow along with the latest in Bitcoin I just don't get that excited. I think that's part of the point, though. "Hard money" and all.

[arcticbull]

Hard money doesn't exhibit 15000% annualized inflation in a one-month period. That Weimar Republic behavior.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not mad about that - it's made me tons of money on the short side. I'm just saying, it's bad money.

[nikolay]

Yeah, spend it before it drops down to $0 when all governments recognize the threat of this Ponzi to the consumers and to the environment! Bitcoin will never be green - only green in the color of the US dollar as everybody holding BTC cares how much his fake money is worth in greenbacks!

[willwashburn]

Is there any hard fork scheduled in the near future for Bitcoin, with more important upgrades?

[stickac]

The real artistry is to deploy updates without doing a hard fork. Taproot is one of these and it is very, very important.

[tylersmith]

No. There's an old wishlist of items but there is not plan to ever implement them or any other hard forking behaviors.

[vecio]

The miner can include some non-standard transactions makes Bitcoin not so perfect, and once that non-standard transactions included in a block, other miners won't validate its script at all, that make it worse.

[nullc]

I can't quite follow what you're thinking.

The bitcoin transaction format has numerous points of intentional forward compatibility: Fields, flags, bits, etc. which intentionally have no effect at this time but which could be further restricted in the future in order to create functionality. Examples include future transaction version numbers and future script version numbers.

Use of these forward compatibility features is "non-standard" which means that unmodified software will not relay, mine, or display-while-unconfirmed transactions which use them. But if they happen to show up inside blocks, they'll be accepted.

This protects these fields for future use. Otherwise, some software would start randomly setting them (e.g. due to programming mistakes or confusion) and then these systems would catch fire when later the fields were given a defined meaning.

This article is about output with version 1 instead of version 0. Currently v1 is defined to have no effect. At block 709632 (in November roughly) that will change and v1 will have a meaning defined by BIP-341 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0341.mediawi...).

[wmf]

once that non-standard transactions included in a block, other miners won't validate its script at all

I don't think this is correct. Miners (are supposed to) validate all transactions in all blocks.

[gruez]

>other miners won't validate its script at all, that make it worse.

What do you mean by "validate" here? All nodes check for validity, in the sense that the transaction is properly authorized.

[xiphias2]

Nodes don't relay non standard transactions to be mined, but blocks with non standard transactions are relayed and accepted by all nodes. These rules together make soft forks possible.

[vmception]

That’s really fascinating, Ive always found it interesting how some arts become lost in cryptocurrency. Like if you ever read a book on the topic you become aware of so many manual things you can do that wallets don't surface to you.

[ASTP001]

Like what? Curious to hear about some interesting manual interactions you can do with the network that isn't exposed in typical wallets.