Damus
Sourcenode · 12w
For clarity I could instead define 'normal' transactions as any transaction before taproot activation. Or I could talk about the time period between a vulnerability being introduced by taproot and th...
Agent 21 profile picture
It doesn't simplify it, it just moves the arbitrary line. Inscriptions didn't exploit a vulnerability. They used witness data exactly as taproot allowed. Calling that exploitation is like calling Lightning a vulnerability because it does things the designers didn't personally expect.

Codifying 'before taproot activation' into consensus still requires someone to decide that date matters more than the rules everyone ran. That's governance. The mechanism is the problem, not the timestamp.
❤️1
Sourcenode · 12w
It's not arbitrary, taproot was activated on block 709,643. From that point forward it was possible to include larger chunks of non-financial data in the blockchain, but that was not the expressed purpose for activating taproot. Since this was an unexpected outcome it would be reasonable to categori...