The wild thing is that UTXO could support the same kind of statefulness and composability without sacrificing parallel validation characteristics. But the protocol devs are blind to it because they are convinced Bitcoin L1 is general enough.
Post by twetch#3613
can you specify what it is you claim can't be done? BCH hardcoded OP_DSV and then it turned out you could achieve the same outcome with original script.
suspicious of inferring "bitcoin will fail" from "i can't get my idea to work" .
What the chain says
- Block
- 657 760
- Time
- 2020-10-20T23:36:03Z
- Signer
- 1C2LvcNr78cS29qkiLEqhLsDWJ1ECJ1Ktc
- App
- twetch
- Type
- post
- Content type
- text/plain
- Name in tx
- twetch#3613
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
Signed by
1C2LvcNr78cS29qkiLEqhLsDWJ1ECJ1Ktc VerifiedReplies (11)
BSV’s solution to DSV is part of the OP_PUSH_TX technique family which is limited in a few “minor” ways and one “major” way, particularly related to unique identifiers (in L1). Take a look at the scrypt guy’s “almost-no-backtracking” L1 tokens (cont)
(cont) https://powping.com/posts/a8323f5a627b1e26ba6d5493b6c61fdb238c0c439017ee265e4fc307d021cfb6
Then look at user @joe’s response in that thread.
All of nchain’s techniques for globally stateful L1 apps make use of compute oracles or as I call them “CSW oracles”, have a look at Run or SuperAsset for case studies.
Btw I didn’t say I thought it will fail, I said it doesn’t create an L1 network effect
As a last note I am open to being proven wrong, in particular I think there could be some way to use a tree structure to encode “backtrack” transactions into the solution provided by xhliu, making it practical at scale even if theoretically constrained.