Being able to generate static addresses and privately receive money many times including directly to a hardware wallet and then being able to use the funds normally to privately send any number of transactions to any number of addresses is also a lot different.
Conversation
Self-custody with layer 1 on Bitcoin is already pushing the limit of what most people can be expected to handle. Safely managing their own keys with split backups and then sending irreversible transactions is a lot for most people. Can't make it 100x harder. It won't be adopted.
1
1
Strong on-chain privacy would mean having the same usage pattern as existing layer 1 Bitcoin usage but with everything being completely confidential via encrypted. The technology for shielded transactions exists. If privacy was a priority it'd be deployed and regularly improved.
1
Taproot was super hyped up but it's incredibly boring and doesn't really improve privacy. It only theoretically helps improve weak obfuscation-based privacy if it had majority adoption. It doesn't help typical Bitcoin user much. It saves them a bit on fees if they use multisig...
1
1
Taproot allows me to make complex decaying multisignature scripts without revealing what they are and who they involve....
1
1
Still lacks privacy in almost every regard and reveals it when you use the functionality. As I said, it doesn't help typical Bitcoin users much beyond saving them a tiny bit of money on fees if they use multisig. It's presented as a huge upgrade but Bitcoin still lacks privacy.
2
~0.6% taproot transactions so making multisig look the same as a single signing key and more complex scripts look the same until you use them doesn't really have privacy benefits right now because adoption is low due to lack of compelling reasons to switch to it for most people.
1
It was /just/ activated. Bitcoin being an actual decentralized chain means adoption takes a while
1
1
Bitcoin mining is hardly decentralized and the vast majority of users don't use their own nodes. I'd be interested in knowing how many people owning Bitcoin even do self-custody. At this point it largely exists for people to speculate. That's why fees are low, not Lightning.
1
1
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Bitcoin did at one point start getting rapid adoption and quickly hit layer 1 transaction limit which is where the nonsense narrative about it being a 'store of value' rather than a 'medium of exchange' started since it was all tied to a massive speculation driven price increase.
To me, the purpose of Bitcoin is earning it and spending it. It's cash. That's how we use it. It's currently very good for using it as a very cheap internationally wire transfer system with shit privacy. It'd stop being good at that again if people started using it more again.
1
Lightning works decently as someone filling up a wallet and spending money. It's a pain in the ass as a merchant or to receive donations. It's terrible for the payroll / wire transfer type use case. It Bitcoin fees went above a couple dollars we'd use something else in practice.
1
Show replies