Author: Ruben Somsen 2022-04-07 17:14:03
Published on: 2022-04-07T17:14:03+00:00
In an email to Laoluwa Osuntokun, Ruben provides feedback on the Taro protocol, a Taproot Asset Representation Overlay that allows for the issuance of normal and collectible assets on the main Bitcoin chain. Ruben notes that there are some issues with the scripting expectations of Taro, which is described as being able to have its own scripting capabilities. He points out that this is fundamentally impossible, as conditional scripts won't be possible if the satisfaction of the condition is not recorded publicly on-chain. Furthermore, the Taro script is not enforced by Bitcoin, meaning those who control the Bitcoin script can always choose to ignore the Taro script and destroy the Taro assets as a result.Ruben also describes an issue related to the history of fungible tokens in Taro/RGB, explaining that the sender of the token has to reveal the history to the recipient. This becomes more complicated in the case of fungible tokens, where there are two possible designs: (a) the token history remains separate or (b) the token history gets merged. The issue with (a) is that it only ever fragments tokens, resulting in lots of tiny but separate amounts, while the issue with (b) is that it creates a linked transaction graph, which quickly becomes a bottleneck that is not unlike that of a regular blockchain.Ruben concludes with two questions about the Taro protocol. First, he asks about the purpose of the sparse merkle tree in the design and whether it is used to open a commitment and show it contains a certain asset without having to reveal any of the other assets. Second, he asks about transferring Taro token ownership from one Bitcoin UTXO to another and whether a new UTXO is generated for the recipient or if it is possible to "teleport" the tokens to an existing UTXO like how RGB does it.
Updated on: 2023-06-15T18:33:52.313042+00:00