Bitcoin’s Taproot Privacy Tech Is Ready – But One Thing’s Standing In The Way
Bitcoin's personal information is very serious. So what can you say when anyone in the world can use Web Explorer to view transactions?
Today, however, developers have long sought to find fixes, and at least they have tried to fix them over time. One of Bitcoin's most famous developers, Greg Maxwell, was very interested when he suggested a product called Taproot in January.
Taproot's code, which is far from providing full Bitcoin privacy, provides a way for all transactions in a block chain to look the same as outsiders. But the joke about this suggestion is being accepted that other projects have lowered the price of the community's eyes and bit coin.
But there are developers of Bitcoin who have not forgotten the suggestion. A lot of trouble continues from behind. The mathematician Andrew Poelstra has collected mathematical security evidence in April, and Anthony Towns, a contributor to Xapo engineers and Bitcoin Core, has released an idea that potentially reduces the amount of data privacy technology uses in July.
As Blockstream co-founder Pieter Wuille mentioned in a recent lecture, why do you believe Taproot is a discovery that offers Bitcoin "a huge privacy victory"? It is actually more difficult to create a bitcoin. In fact, the test code has already been implemented to make Maxwell's theory work.
"The roots are very simple and can be used right away," CoinDesk said.
The problem is that it depends on technology that does not yet exist.
"Without Schnorr, Taproot will not take you to where he wants to go."
The reason is that Taproot keeps all the down payments in the bit coin secret.
There are various complex transactions used in bit coin, more commonly known as smarter contracts. Scalable bit coins are a kind of coin-paying and off-block chain protocol that you can use for other complex types that are still under development.
However, since Bitcoin's books are public, it is obvious when using one of these complex transactions.
Maxwell is ending Taproot Guy by making this deal look the same as all the other "boring payments".
However, you can not do this without Schnorr. Schnorr has been upgraded to Bitcoin's signature scheme, which has been used for years in the developer's coding agenda. The signature scheme is "basically better than the bit sign coin's current signature configuration on all sides." You can also use Taproot because you can combine signature data into a single piece of data.
Wuille says in his presentation, "Schnorr is needed because you can not encode multiple keys in a single key because you do not need Schnorr.
Schnorr finally goes down finally. In fact, Wuille seems to have the following important changes in the beat coin: Wuille recently published a detailed technical proposal on how to add to the beat coin.
But now that Schnorr has been around for years, developers have long dreamed of technology that actually survived.
As Towns said, Schnorr is a "more exciting" change, but Taproot is "the top cherry".
However, developers have long thought of other enhancements, including those provided by Schnorr, so Taproot is not the only significant change to consider. Towns think that privacy enhancement can go along with other upgrades that do many bit-ups at the same time.
"Referring to another technology McDowell pioneered," I am bundled with Taproot, Schnorr, and Graftroot all together.
And it does not stop there. Towns speculates that other long-awaited changes, including MAST, which is a proposal to strengthen bitcoin smart contracts, and SIGHASH_NOINPUT, which can introduce a more stable lightning network, are going to happen at the same time. Have a bit coin for the public.
Although these technologies have different names and were proposed at different times, Towns began to think of them as one.
Deciding what to do next
There are actually too many proposed changes, so the developer needs to do it first.
Wuille explained in his story why it was not such an easy decision. All of these features are less burdensome to deploy at once. A new addressing format is required each time a new "consensus change" is deployed.
The address is different from the old address, so you can clearly see who is using the new feature. Especially because not everyone suddenly adopts the function. It will take time as past changes take time.
It is a small blow to privacy. And it would be even worse to do this more than once.
On the other hand, placing all these changes together is a mess.
Speaking of other changes, there is Schnorr's most famous application, the so-called "signature aggregation". This can help further extend the bit coin. However, it is one of the changes I think we should add to the bit coin later because it is too complex and requires further review.
Schnorr, however, can not ultimately become a barrier to Taproot.
In fact, Wuille focuses on suggestions for deploying Schnorr and Taproot together. Taproot's added privacy is very exciting and I think it's a "huge win" of a smart contract with a beatco.
Towns at Schnorr front noted that developers are still addressing some of the shortcomings such as the hardware attack vector Maxwell discovered.
Developers who are providing code timelines are cautious because upgrades often take longer than expected. And so is Schnorr.
Poelstra hopes to provide a bitcoin user with an opportunity to decide whether to accept it and to be able to distribute it by the end of the year. But everything depends on the developer being able to settle in the path of change.
As the town said:
"Until we know what to catch, we can not make a proposal, the only delay is to get it done."
Tree root image via Shutterstock
CoinDesk, a leader in block-chain news, is a media outlet that pursues the highest standards of journalism and adheres to strict editorial policies. CoinDesk is an independent operating subsidiary of the Digital Currency Group, which invests in cryptocurrencies and block-chain startups.
(f.fbq) return; n = f.fbq = function () n.callMethod?
n.callMethod.apply (n, arguments): n.queue.push (arguments); if (! f._fbq) f._fbq = n;
n.push = n; n.loaded =! 0; n.version = & # 39; 2.0 & # 39 ;; n.queue = ; t = b.createElement (e); t.async =! 0;
t.src = v; s = b.getElementsByTagName (e) ; s.parentNode.insertBefore (t, s)} (window,
Document, & # 39; script & # 39 ;, & # 39; // connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js');
fbq (& # 39; init & # 39 ;, & # 39; 472218139648482 & # 39;);
fbq (& # 39; track & # 39 ;, & # 39; PageView & # 39;);
You must log in to post a comment.