And that’s where Bitcoin comes in. I thought in my head, they’ll probably pick a better protocol by the time it actually would be required and ends up being true, so that’s good news. However, the exchange fails to provide users with enough information on how the funds are being secured, yet we like to believe that security is taken seriously. Which can end up costing you a lot of money without knowing exactly how many times you need to move the Bitcoin until it’s cleared for a crypto exchange. Need Consulting? Contact Us Now! So, we need to change that, because we need to allow taproot, which means allowing also input, especially if we use MuSig2; we don’t want to reveal the internal keys. Bastien Teinturier: Sure. So right now, when we announced the channel on the network, we explicitly announced node IDs and the Bitcoin keys that are inside the multisig 2-of-2, and people verified that the output that we are referencing is actually locked with the script hash of multisig 2-of-2 of those two keys, so you can only use it with scripts that really follow the format of Lightning channels without taproot. In short, Monero is cryptocurrency done right
>
Tether (USDT) is a cryptocurrency whose cryptocoins that are in circulation have to be backed by a traditional fiat currency. Most normal people hear the word "cryptocurrency" and youtu.be assume that means that they are "cryptic" or "private," but that's actually a huge, perhaps the hugest misunderstanding of our time and it has some big consequences. So, I would talk to Bastien quite a bit, I would talk to the statechains people. Bastien Teinturier: Okay, so for now, the first thing we are doing with taproot is just moving the funding transactions, the channel output to use the MuSig2 taproot output. Mike Schmidt: Murch or t-bast, any other comments on taproot and MuSig2 channels? Maybe, t-bast, you can give an overview of why the current gossip protocol is incompatible with taproot and MuSig2 channels, and what the different options were discussed during the meeting about how to upgrade it. So, just moving the funding transactions to use MuSig2 already has a very nice benefit for all users, and it’s a good way to start experimenting with taproot with MuSig2 before moving on to PTLC. Joseph also attributes the exchange’s dominance to the vast amount of liquidity available on Binance, which means reduced slippage costs and spreads, an attractive benefit for trade
/p>
Position traders are concerned with trends that can be observed over extended periods - they’ll try to profit from the overall market direction. Candlestick charts help traders analyze market structure and determine whether we’re in a bullish or bearish market environment. I’m making sure that whatever we’re building would actually be useful by these projects, I think that’s very important. But that’s further in the future, like considerable further in the future. Maybe that’s for you, t-bast. Greg Sanders: Yeah, we’d be able to get rid of that message, the update fee that t-bast was talking about, which would be great. Mike Schmidt: Greg had mentioned DLCs as another potential protocol or different types of protocols that should be considering relay policy, mempool, and getting confirmations. Greg Sanders: Yeah, if I can jump in. And we’ve always gone back and forth between those, because we don’t know if we should do a simpler version first and wait for later to do a much more complex version, or if we should just jump to the more complex versi
ight now.
Bastien Teinturier: Yeah, I think also one of the reasons we don’t see pinning is that really, it’s harder to pin right now and make it work your while, because right now, commitment transactions do pay some fees. If I’m understanding the reason behind that, it’s that the reason that sipa points out here, that there are known algorithms that are more effective than just brute-forcing 256-bit keys, so that it’s technically then 128-bit security; am I getting that right? The rules of the bitcoin protocol include the requirement that a user cannot send the same bitcoin more than once (the double spend problem discussed earlier) and a user cannot send bitcoin from an address for which they do not possess the private key. I didn’t think it was too bad, but the one key difference here is that for the payment channels with penalties as currently designed, it’s necessitating that you store these secret nonces forever until channel close. So, that would be enabling us to (a) have to have one that makes the force close bring the fees, and (b) to have zero fees on the commitment transactions themselves.