Actually, most people getting into Ordinals/BRC20 are the same people who got into IEOs, ICOs, and everything else and have NO idea what any of it is. They just know it's te next big thing and have FOMO. So they use whatever wallet app that the person talking about it on YouTube Telegram or wherever tells them to.

So in the end they will move to whatever wallet is being talked about by whatever scammer is doing the talking that day.

Kind of like the people that go and buy gold because the commercial on TV told them it was a good investment.

-Dave

I've been saying it all along: do this stuff on Lightning using RGB or Taro! It's better for everyone. Cheaper and faster for NFT users, no mempool congestion for L1 users who just want to efficiently spend receive Bitcoin as well as Lightning operators that need to open new channels.

In case this motivated anyone to finally spin up their own Lightning node; here's my obligatory pitch (since the topic always gets pushed down quickly) for my (usually) up-to-date FULL NODE installation guide.

Taproot Assets is a highly interesting technology, but what I was missing until now was a really good "ELI5".

I've found this video now (it's already a year old so I simply missed it), so I'll describe in this post what seems to be the main benefits of TA with respect to competing technologies (not only BRC-20 but also systems like Counterparty or OmniLayer).

1) TA transactions look like regular Bitcoin (Taproot) transactions, which increases privacy. Due to the structure of transactions, a "Merkle Sum, Sparse Merkle Tree" (MS-SMT) embedded in a Taproot tree, it is easy to realize proofs (e.g. about token balances/quantities) without revealing other information like the transaction history.

2) TA transactions can transfer multiple kinds of assets or tokens at a time, as they can all be stuffed into a MS-SMT. This also allows to issue tokens to multiple accounts in single and relatively small transactions. Thus also on-chain TA transactions need less blockchain space than the competitors. (I am not 100% sure about the first part, maybe somebody can confirm this )

3) There is a way to transfer TA assets over Lightning without all nodes between sender and receiver needing to support TA. As far as I have understood it, you need to be connected to a node which can do an atomic swap to Bitcoin, then route through Bitcoin Lightning nodes until another TA atomic swap node connected with the receiver of the payment. Basically you do 2 exchange operations in such a transfer, but as they're all instant it doesn't feel complicated. This looks however that some significant fees could be needed for the swaps, but for sure that depends on the liquidity of the token.

What would be also interesting for me are common characteristics and differences with RGB (another Lightning-supporting token/smart contract protocol). The RGB documentation is even more technical than TA's, and it seems it's an even more abstract/low level protocol than TA. It was said that TA took some concepts from RGB and the dev team was even accused of plagiarism, but I don't know the details so I don't want to adhere to this claim or not

i don't know if this belongs to this particular topic, but there is now the polar v2.0 release which now also supports the taproot assets protocol daemon (tapd) nodes. if it is out of place here i apologize and you don't need to pay attention to it...

https://github.com/jamaljsr/polar/releases
https://lightningpolar.com/
https://github.com/lightninglabs/taproot-assets

Nah it's definitely in-place , the more software that supports Taproot Assets, the smaller the chance some minter discovers BRC20 minting software which is currently hosted on only a few online webapps.


Don't worry about it (for now). The current crop of shitcoiners are using BRC20 to transact via (drum roll please....) exchanges.

That means the BRC20 transactions that are being done between users in these marketplaces are completely custodial. So in this particular case, the exchanges will definitely set it up as the sender interacts with the exchange who then sells the asset to the exchange, and the buyer does the same. Especially those who want to make "NFT marketplaces". Because exchanges always want to make fat commissions. This arrangement inadvertently works in our favor.

Not untrue. Surprised me a many years back to hear some people "had Bitcoin" on eToro until I learnt later it was heavily advertised in London.

First wallet I ever used was Electrum, quite literally because the first legible guide I liked and thought was the most useful and not annoying said to use Electrum. It's still the one I use today, but if I hadn't heard of Ordinals from this forum first, I'd be using OrdinalsWallet (which is what Google shows first and what YTers seem to like).

So you're right. If LL's new Taproot Assets proves to be as good and easy to use as claimed, and is picked up by the YTers and influencers etc.


That anything to do with BIP300, 301 I'm hearing about lately?

I know I commented in some places that all this live money on these tokens is preventing us from pulling the plug, but come to think of it, if we can get even a slice of these users to dump their spam on some off-chain protocol instead, using one of the new technologies, then that would be a good time to push a "deprecation" of unlimited Taproot data size and eventually shut it down on the rest of those BRC20 holdouts. Whatever "live money" is left on these tokens can be treated the same way as (hypothetically) legacy ECDSA bitcoin addresses that are disabled in a post-quantum world.

Because the general sentiment of the dev mailing list, is that currently nothing is going to happen. Perhaps they are thinking that because they might still see a use case in unlimited Taproot witness size.

Now with these alternate technologies springing up like Taproot Assets, Ark, and others, when people eventually script those things creatively on those protocols, it will hopefully be agreed on by core devs that nobody has actually used Taproot witness size for anything useful and go along with its deprecation.

So, when you are using a taproot address, you are actually revealing your public key? Are we going backwards now?

With regards to the layer 1 and not to any auxiliary layer such as LN, I thought the whole (or at least one of the main) purpose of Taproot addresses was that the Schnorr signatures used to make Taproot transactions prevent public key recovery in the first place.


Where did you get that quote from, because as far as the OP topic is concerned, I never wrote those things.