12020-02-14T05:09:45  *** molly has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 22020-02-14T05:13:11  *** molz_ has quit IRC
 32020-02-14T05:46:32  *** molly has quit IRC
 42020-02-14T09:30:56  *** evoskuil[m] has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 52020-02-14T13:30:43  *** jonatack has quit IRC
 62020-02-14T17:49:12  *** belcher has quit IRC
 72020-02-14T17:58:47  *** belcher has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 82020-02-14T18:18:03  *** ghost43_ has joined ##taproot-bip-review
 92020-02-14T18:19:03  *** ghost43 has quit IRC
102020-02-14T18:55:12  *** jonatack has joined ##taproot-bip-review
112020-02-14T19:25:21  *** ghost43_ has quit IRC
122020-02-14T19:26:06  *** ghost43 has joined ##taproot-bip-review
132020-02-14T20:36:03  *** jeremyrubin has quit IRC
142020-02-14T20:37:33  *** jeremyrubin has joined ##taproot-bip-review
152020-02-14T23:35:22  <jeremyrubin> harding: I think the thing that's not clear to me is that the single sig majority will continue
162020-02-14T23:36:32  <jeremyrubin> E.g., one could imagine once lightning is deployed fully, then I would expect the majority of transactions to be lightning channel closes
172020-02-14T23:36:49  <jeremyrubin> Or at least envision that being the case
182020-02-14T23:37:15  <jeremyrubin> Because there is really no reason to ever close a channel if the LN is working well (strong claim)
192020-02-14T23:37:25  <jeremyrubin> So the only time you would close would be for contested close
202020-02-14T23:37:42  <jeremyrubin> So then that would be the dominant case on the network
212020-02-14T23:37:59  <jeremyrubin> And Taproot would be costing those users a bit extra
222020-02-14T23:38:20  <jeremyrubin> We won't have evidence for that for like a decade so :shrug: overall
232020-02-14T23:38:32  <jeremyrubin> But it's not clear to me that the priors are really that strong
242020-02-14T23:39:26  <jeremyrubin> And that we won't see some big sampling bias on actual on-chain behavior (the ones that can be a single sig never need to go on chain)
252020-02-14T23:50:38  <maaku> jeremyrubin: there are many reasons to close a LN channel even when it is working. not all use cases are payments...
262020-02-14T23:51:28  <maaku> but that doesn't affect the general point you're making
272020-02-14T23:52:06  <jeremyrubin> maaku: such as? And it doesn't need to be exclusively for payments, just needs to be the most frequent
282020-02-14T23:55:02  <maaku> well, like movement of colored coin assets that are sign-to-contract committed to a LN channel, or moving coins in-out of a consensus-enforced vault construct
292020-02-14T23:55:57  <maaku> but unless there's a long tail of these esoteric use cases, which I'm not ready to argue, then you're right about the most common use cases
302020-02-14T23:56:07  <maaku> so it doesn't really impact your argument. i was being pedantic
312020-02-14T23:56:18  <jeremyrubin> maaku: so for colored coin LN does that require moving out?
322020-02-14T23:56:33  <jeremyrubin> maaku: and for vault-y stuff I would expect that to not be single sig anyways
332020-02-14T23:56:51  <jeremyrubin> anyways we can take it out of band