Author: Olaoluwa Osuntokun 2022-11-05 00:35:53
Published on: 2022-11-05T00:35:53+00:00
The "utxo teleport" scheme attempts to transmit ownership to an unspent transaction output (UTXO), but there are concerns about its soundness. Once a transaction hits the chain, the UTXO may no longer exist, which raises questions about what happens to the asset. Taro's state transition model, on the other hand, binds everything to a single synchronization point: a normal Bitcoin transaction with inputs consumed and outputs created. This ensures re-org safety traits similar to regular Bitcoin transactions. Additionally, Taro transfers inherit all the capabilities of Bitcoin/LN transactions, such as atomic swaps, splicing, MIMO swaps, on-chain auctions, etc. There is also a drawback to the teleport model, as it either requires an OP_RETURN or additional out-of-band synchronization to complete the transfer. With Taro, sending to an address creates an on-chain taproot output that directly creates the new asset anchor/output. The receiver can look for that address on the chain like a normal on-chain transaction, and obtaining provenance proofs finalizes the receipt of the asset. The send process is fully asynchronous, with the blockchain serving as a synchronization point like a normal Bitcoin wallet. Finally, Laolu questions the efficacy of the teleport model for anchoring assets in channels, where serialization of events/actions is critical.
Updated on: 2023-06-03T08:18:32.182011+00:00