CSW: the bitcoin protocol cannot be changed and the Schnorr signature is just a scam

On April 9, CraigWright was on his personalMediumHere's another article about bitcoin.

CSW believes that bitcoin should be the simplest and easiest. Now bitcoin is complicated and messy.

& quot; Cryptocurrency" The problem with development communities is that they seek complexity and end up in chaos. Like many technocrats, they want to control the outcome, not let it evolve.

It says bitcoin is a simple protocol and that the security of its system is protected by miners, who cannot renew the protocol.

This feature is also a key factor in bitcoin's power. That is, miners don't set protocols, only rules.

The CSW, for example, has a rule in bitcoin that says that if 50% of the miners in the community want to add blocks to the line, they can do so, and those who don't can go bankrupt. Miners are either in or out. Bitcoin is not about people. It's about data.

Rules are different from protocols. The white paper explains that any necessary rules can be set. In other words, miners can choose to reject certain deals, as long as they are willing to take the losses they choose to incur.

The important difference is whether a deal can be replayed after the fact. In short, a transaction that has been signed today may not make it to the next block because of lower transaction costs, and if the value of bitcoin against the dollar is later assumed to rise, the miners will be willing to accept the deal, and the previously rejected deal may be reaccepted.

CSW has said so much above, mainly in preparation for the Schnorr signature attack. This signature was recently promoted by the BTC community and is likely to be added to bitcoin as an upgrade package along with Taproot and signature aggregation with multiple signatures.

CSW said adding Schnorr signatures to help expand its bitcoin (BTC) content was a breach of protocol. Such "upgrades" are intended to create anonymous systems and change bitcoin's protocols. But real bitcoin has never been designed to be anonymous. It's just a pursuit. These are people who want to turn bitcoin's key force, privacy, into their preferred anonymity.

Mr O goes on to explain how he thinks Schnorr's signature does not save space: transactions are made by two parties, with A signing one to B. So A has A single signature, signed to A single signature-based cost address. Therefore, the so-called saved space can be negligible, or even no savings. But at the same time, this signature removes all the ability for users to easily track transactions.

In the end, he also expressed his "sense of justice", arguing that the propaganda was misleading the public into thinking it could create a system that could not be tracked by the government.

CraigWright concludes that this argument is as wrong as ever because of the fact that in a legal system such desires can easily be prevented. To get value, bitcoins must be easily exchanged. And to do that, it has to be legal. Exchanging and keeping wallets should be simple and done within the law. Swap sites are most vulnerable to attack and closure. When the ability to channel bitcoin into and out of ordinary cryptocurrencies and legal COINS is eliminated, the full potency and value of bitcoin is eliminated.

This article refers to the microblog article of lawyer liu ye in Shanghai,Click to view the original article

Welcome to join the official BlockBeats community:

Telegram Subscription Group: https://t.me/theblockbeats

Telegram Discussion Group: https://t.me/BlockBeats_App

Official Twitter Account: https://twitter.com/BlockBeatsAsia