Re: opinion: it would be better off if taproot was rolled back
on layer 2, there is this horrible proposal called TARO, which makes use of taproot and pretends to bring digital assets to the LN, such as stablecoins, arbitrary tokens, nfts, etc.
Big difference is that this stable coins on LN and other layer2 is backed only by Bitcoin, and they don't need other centralized shitcoin blockchain...
There is no single authority who makes decisions in Bitcoin, and I don't think we should fork anything or ''undone'' Taproot at all.
..
Oh yeah, ban all softworks
I don't know if you live under the rock, but Taproot can really improve privacy a lot, and it's not here because of ''cool features''.
a. the sily subnetwork BRIDGE you speak of is not even a skin of bitcoin. its a bridge(crossborder) system for multiple currencies. its just had such crap development and shoddy work done on it not one has really bothered to use it apart from idiots that think its just for bitcoin" thus snake oil phish pitched it as a bitcoin only thing
heck even poon called it a cross border network so get a clue
b government regulators are not attacking that silly subnetwork due to stable coins.. its about facilitating the routing of payments on the behalf of third parties for a commission.. (or as the americans call it running a money service business) which has always put LN routers at risk even moving msats..
the reason governments have not chased after people that open up their msats for route utility. is becasue the amounts are too small to give a crap about chasing someone for a $2 profit per month
c. core are the defacto authority. every proposal has to go through them an be moderated out quick or sponsored in .. any other implementation brand ever trying to offer proposals not part of the core roadmap gets REKT
d. allowing funcky new formats in that do not require nodes to be upgraded first to recognised the rules set of new formats is BAD. it means nodes are not verifying and validating the full blockchain data. SUPERBAD
going soft is a way that consensus strictness has been softened to allow possible bugs/trojan functions into bitcoin without any vetting review or prevention by the decentralised network. its done to bypass the requirement of full nodes to be ready to validate everything. its done to let core get their way while not allowing there centralised network to object to it
e. anyone saying let it happen let it carry on. is revealing they dont care about bitcoins concept and protocols and just wants a certain group to remain the central point of failure, knowing a central point of failure will fail at some point