Author: Olaoluwa Osuntokun 2022-04-11 18:21:14
Published on: 2022-04-11T18:21:14+00:00
The email exchange between Olaoluwa Osuntokun and Bram Cohen discusses the limitations and tradeoffs of the Taro system. Witnesses for transactions need to be put into Bitcoin transactions despite the Bitcoin layer not understanding them. There needs to be a constraint on Taro transactions that is understood by the Bitcoin layer. Taro issuance is limited to a single event rather than potentially multiple events subject to special per-asset rules. Multiple Taro coins cannot consolidate their value into a single output because they only support a single linear history. Despite these limitations, there is nothing wrong with a system having well-documented limitations. In the past, Olaoluwa Osuntokun has considered using the existing annex field in taproot transactions to implement partial reveal of certain data. However, bitcoind treats annex usage as non-standard, so those transactions may be harder to relay. The annex field would be a great place to add minimal extra data because it doesn't bleed over into the scripting layer, and Bitcoin-level signatures also include this field in the sighash, which serves to authenticate the data further. Future op codes that allow Scripts to push annex data onto the stack could also be used to further bind higher level protocols while still allowing the base Bitcoin consensus rules to not have to be explicitly aware of them.Taro assets are straightforwardly and unambiguously colored coins, but the team has shied away from using the "colored coins" terminology as it's dated, and new developers who joined in the last 3 years or so have likely never heard of it. Instead, they use the familiar and widely used asset issuance/minting terminology.
Updated on: 2023-05-22T18:47:08.432813+00:00