On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 9:23 PM, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > The issue with that approach without support for the privacy-encouraging > wrapper proposed by Greg here is that it encourages adoption halfway and > destroys a lot of the value of the apparent-script monoculture for privacy > preservation. Greg's proposal here doesn't change the format of any specific > MAST implementation, but instead adds the privacy wrapper that I always felt > was missing in existing proposals, without any real additional overhead in > many use-cases! > > Indeed, permissionless innovation is important, but the huge advantage of > providing the privacy wrapper by default here is absolutely massive to the > ecosystem and should not be handwaved away for vague possibly-advantages.
Even if to someone who didn't care about anyone's privacy at all, non-taproot is simply inefficient. In the (I argue) overwhelmingly common case of everyone-agrees simple hash based branching requires a 30% overhead to communicate the commitment to the untaken branch (and worse in the case of extensive aggregation). I don't think an argument can be sustained in favor of that kind of communications overhead. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
