Major BIP 360 Update

The terminology used in blockchain and cryptocurrency discussions is often subject to scrutiny for its accuracy and clarity. A notable example of this is the debate around the naming convention for a specific type of transaction, commonly referred to as "Pay-to-Something." The critique centers on the use of the term "hash" within this context, with arguments pointing out that it might be misleading. The core of this argument lies in the understanding that transactions directed towards a script tree inherently target the tree's root. This process does not involve hashing the root in a separate operation, which the term might imply. Consequently, suggesting a change in nomenclature from Pay-to-Script-Tree Hash (P2STH) to Pay-to-Script-Tree (P2ST) emphasizes a preference for technical precision and simplicity. This adjustment aims to eliminate unnecessary complexity in terminology without compromising the essence of the technology.

The discussion further touches upon the motivations behind the choice of terms, raising concerns over the implications of prioritizing marketing appeal over technical accuracy. The critique suggests that adopting terms for their marketability, especially when they introduce potential confusion, undermines the integrity of technical communication. Advocating for P2ST as a more accurate descriptor than P2STH reflects a broader principle of valuing simplicity and exactness in the language used to describe technological mechanisms.

Additionally, the conversation acknowledges the importance of semantics in the widespread adoption and understanding of new technologies. It underlines the belief that achieving consensus on terminological matters could pave the way for deeper engagements with the technical aspects of the technology. The discourse showcases a willingness among enthusiasts and experts alike to refine the language surrounding innovations to foster clearer comprehension and support further advancements in the field.