pull down to refresh
In that case, i'm one hundred percent willing to admit that I may have been wrong, and I will give you the complete benefit of the doubt. My apologies for misunderstanding. Sorry.
The theory is that you need the demand for the block space first. There's no shortage of shit coins that try to "solve" bitcoin by putting the cart before the horse. I'm not familiar with starkware, but I know if simular coins who's claim to fame is infinite block space. Infinite block space + not Infinite demand = dead coin.
I don't know if anyone has claimed that this can fix all 3 concurrently. If you were to roll this out today, for instance, you would solve the quantum threat, and the scaling issue. You'd then have to hope that adoption catches up fast enough to pay miners. That's not a position anyone wants to be in.
I also know originally this would have allowed for a DDOS attack against the network. That has been fixed, but I don't actually know if this opens up any new attack vectors, or concerns about them.
If you were to roll this out today, for instance, you would solve the quantum threat, and the scaling issue.
No, you wouldn't, and that's the problem. What you would do, and I think that this is also how both Ethan and Andrew frame it - or at least how I read it - is that you'd allow solutions to be developed more freely, with real mainnet use cases. And then, you'd be able to optimize the things that work and the latter in turn would solve things like quantum resistance and scaling and some dedicated opcodes to do for example successful BitVM applications properly.
I am not against OP_CAT, at all, even though I'd favor it as a part of GSR. I do because there is much to say for having greater script primitive flexibility, so that these "suboptimal" products can be developed and proven, giving everyone an idea about what is truly needed (and creating some friction, which isn't bad, imho.) For the Quantum case it is too late though, that's already worked on in optimized form. The magic isn't in use cases that we know of: it's in the use cases that we haven't thought of yet.
This is actually a really good take.
My field of knowledge is actually pretty narrow regarding quantum solutions, are there any BIPs you're in favor of?
Honestly, I don't like any of the things circulating at the moment, most of the small stuff is stateful, making wallet backups (not seed backups) a must-have and the stateless ones have 20x signature size - OpTech keeps tabs on everything that's being discussed, so I come back to that page a couple times per month, see what's new.
I do like the rewritten BIP-360 as a stopgap measure for long range attacks on p2tr. But it's not a real solution for PQ resistance long term.
Unless I'm missing something, don't those trade offs bring us right back to square one? I don't know if OP_CAT is the actual solution, but I don't see a whole lot of other options floating around for long term PQ.
I guess I'm out of ideas then lol. If nothing looks good, then nothing looks good.
I don't think we should presume that we can "solve the quantum issue" between you and I, unless we are cryptographers. I'm not, I'm just a lowly implementer of cryptography that is extremely dependent on people that design the algorithms to share and explain them to me.
I think we can help them best by reading, understanding and appreciating their work. Not so much by making things political or by exerting pressure.
It's amazing that there are people that want to solve this. The number of proposals is growing, which also means the number of people working on it is growing. I think we can get there. Either way, there's a massive canary in the form of all these lost p2pk transactions sitting on-chain, so we'll know when to worry. That moment does not seem to be there yet.
You're reflecting something beyond my intent. But it's ok. What I mean is: if ZK rollups are the ultimate solution to demand, why is Starknet doing so poorly?