What would stop someone from trying to spend the same bitcoin multiple times? If we were to adopt this, obviously we shouldn't call it "chia lisp" anymore, since it wouldn't work the same in important ways. Both those essentially give you a lisp-like language -- lisp is obviously all about lists, and a binary tree is just made of things or pairs of things, and pairs of things are just another way of saying "car" and "cdr". 0) 1 (if (l sigs) (if (checksig (f sigs) (f keys)) (checkmultisig (r sigs) (r keys) (- k 1)) (checkmultisig sigs (r keys) k) ) 0 ) ) Here each "sig" is a pair of a 64B bip340 signature and a 1B sighash; instead of a 65B string combining both, and sigs, keys are lists, and k is the number of successful signature checks you're requiring for success. 100kB of serialized clvm code from a random block gzips to 60kB; optimising the serialization for small lists, and perhaps also for small literal numbers might be a feasible improvement; though it's not clear to me how frequently serialization size would be the limiting factor for cost versus execution time or memory usage.

Granted, I've only really been looking at chia lisp for a bit over a week, but it really seems to me like a case where it might be worth putting that philosophy into practice. And while I've never really coded in lisp at all, my understanding is that its biggest problems are all about doing things efficiently at large scales -- but script's problem space is for very small scale things, so there's at least reason to hope that any problems lisp might have won't actually show up for this use case. Now that Bitcoin has been shown to have a level of volatility that the gold standard and conventional currencies do not experience, it's unlikely that Bitcoin will become a global currency standard anytime soon. They cannot ignore the fact that Facebook's idea of a new global currency will create repercussion, mainly for the central banks across the world. The idea was to implement a monthly service fee that requires the user to pay a fixed amount if the channel isn’t being used. This new feature is especially useful for hardware wallets and other paired wallets as it makes it possible to add HD key-path information to the PSBTs so that wallets asked to sign a PSBT can easily derive the keys needed for signing or verify that a change output does indeed pay back into the wallet.

Anti fee sniping is a technique some wallets implement to discourage miners from trying to steal fees from each other in a way that would reduce the amount of proof of work expended on securing Bitcoin and limit users’ ability to rely on confirmation scores. That way they can put their liquidity to use somewhere else that is more productive for the rest of the network. It seems to end up equivalent to doing things in a list oriented way to me. I see bitcoin at $20k and see the cops take full control, so personally, I wouldn't see it exceeding $2,000 before the end of the year. Erlay is proposal to improve the bandwidth efficiency of relaying unconfirmed transactions between Bitcoin full nodes. A public key serves as an address that can be shared with other parties to perform transactions. Here, a security breach event allowed hackers to access validators, jeopardising the transactions.

Here, it will multiply your losses. The other is to use the "softfork" opcode -- chia defines it as: (softfork cost code) though I think it would probably be better if it were (softfork cost version code) where the idea is that "code" will use the "x" opcode if there's a problem, and anyone supporting the "version" softfork can verify that there aren't any problems at a cost of "cost". So the idea still has merit for LN, youtu.be as a replacement for 2-fo-3 escrows. For example, rather than the streaming-sha256 approach in Elements, where you could write: "a" SHA256INITIALIZE "b" SHA256UPDATE "c" SHA256UPDATE "d" SHA256FINALIZE to get the sha256 of "abcd" without having to CAT them first (important if they'd potentially overflow the 520B stack item limit), in chia lisp you write: (sha256 "a" "b" "c" "d") which still has the benefit of streaming the inputs into the function, but only adds a single opcode, doesn't involve representing the internal sha256 midstate on the stack, and generally seems easier to understand, at least to me. I don't think they've solved the broader problem, and thus I think it still makes more sense to stick with bitcoin's current model here.