Bip taro #1298

1. 
   learn2grid commented at 1:59 pm on April 6, 2022: none

   Fixes #
2. bip-taro: initial version aa518f740b
3. Roasbeef force-pushed on Apr 8, 2022
4. Update bip-taro.mediawiki

   Fix typo in "Asset Provenance" sections:
   
   repented -> represented

   7acd275fd5
5. Fix small typo

   "(one each  each..." -> "one for each..."

   2daf2376e9
6. More typos

   collectible ->  collectible

   f62e355ca8
7. Typo: Now -> no 5f6aec190e
8. fix typos: close code tags 6962c1a486
9. bip-taro: further extend acknowledgements 4daba8c373
10. bip-taro-addr: propagate the asset script hash -> script key rename c5791fe56c
11. Merge pull request #19 from janx/patch-1

    fix typos: close code tags

    683368c4de
12. Merge pull request #18 from casey/patch-1

    Typo: Now -> no

    4e94b63a74
13. Merge pull request #17 from turbosnail9/patch-2

    Fix small typo

    a33ab4cce2
14. Merge pull request #16 from turbosnail9/patch-1

    Update bip-taro.mediawiki

    ac690e2e54
15. merkle tree variant 2fd9b79cf6
16. bip-taro-addr: use uniform snake casing for the variable names 73760816e9
17. bip-taro-ms-smt: fix typos 7237689b60
18. bip-taro-vm: spell out the two types of validation

    In this commit, we fix an ambiguity in the spec w.r.t how state
    transitions are valid. There're two types of state transitions:
     1. Transitions that include a prev witness
     2. Transitions that don't include one, and instead specify the
        split_commitment_proof
    
    We only need to do the input+output mapping and VM validation for the
    first case. For the second case, a parent state transition exists, which
    is what create the split in the first place. In this case we just need
    to verify the split commitment proof of the child, then verify the state
    transition of the parent itself.
    
    When the child is spent (the above is carried out when people are
    validating the child's existence), the rules are applied as normal.

    fa05b011c5
19. bip-taro: fix typos 32a5372289
20. Merge pull request #20 from Roasbeef/bip-taro-tbast

    multi: BIP taro wording, specificity, and typo fixes

    67434bc43a
21. Not sure if duplicate typo 9d2f40864b
22. on-chain instead of off-chain

    collectibles assets can only be transferred on-chain.

    9989ad7174
23. bip-taro: modify asset ID generation, require unique commitments

    This commit contains a few important changes:
    
    * The asset ID now includes the output index, which ensures they're
      unique and also allows for created assets to live in distinct outputs.
    * A concrete requirement (handwavy statement was there before) that only
      a single taro commitment exists in a script tree at any given time. To
      achieve this, we take advantage of the BIP 340 tagged hash contract,
      to ensure that the commitment is either the only element, or is the
      leftmost/rightmost element.
    * Building off the above, we then detail a deterministic way to burn
      assets, as well as prove to others that assets have been burnt. The
      asset burning will play a role in the upcoming re-genesis protocol
      feature.
    
    One additional change during transfers is for parties to reveal the
    sibling hash of the taro root commitment so uniqueness verification can
    be done on that level. In addition, a similar reveal occurs for the
    other outputs (if they exist) that don't explicitly commit (as far as
    one party is aware) to any other assets.

    70fb13a4a7
24. Merge pull request #21 from Roasbeef/bip-taro-uniqueness

    bip-taro: modify asset ID generation, require unique commitments

    70bbfc583c
25. Merge pull request #22 from kevkevinpal/patch-1

    Not sure if duplicate typo

    fbbb9c1da0
26. Merge pull request #23 from JssDWt/patch-1

    on-chain instead of off-chain

    94b869a797
27. luke-jr added the label New BIP on May 5, 2022
28. 
    luke-jr commented at 3:42 pm on May 5, 2022: member

    @Roasbeef is this ready, or someone else opened a PR prematurely?
29. 
    Roasbeef commented at 10:50 pm on May 6, 2022: contributor

    @luke-jr someone seems to have opened a PR prematurely.
30. 
    laanwj commented at 2:36 pm on May 10, 2022: member

    @luke-jr someone seems to have opened a PR prematurely.

    Thanks, closing for now.

31. laanwj closed this on May 10, 2022

    ---

Contributors
learn2grid luke-jr Roasbeef laanwj

Labels
New BIP