From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A260C000B for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2022 06:17:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50F384018D for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2022 06:17:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.278 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.276, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rcO7bUzjODPs for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2022 06:17:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from azure.erisian.com.au (cerulean.erisian.com.au [139.162.42.226]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D285840178 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2022 06:17:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from aj@azure.erisian.com.au (helo=sapphire.erisian.com.au) by azure.erisian.com.au with esmtpsa (Exim 4.92 #3 (Debian)) id 1nFVQk-0004J7-U2; Thu, 03 Feb 2022 16:17:20 +1000 Received: by sapphire.erisian.com.au (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 03 Feb 2022 16:17:14 +1000 Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 16:17:14 +1000 From: Anthony Towns To: Matt Corallo , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Message-ID: <20220203061714.GA5326@erisian.com.au> References: <20210704011341.ddbiruuomqovrjn6@ganymede> <20210704203230.37hlpdyzr4aijiet@ganymede> <5keA_aPvmCO5yBh_mBQ6Z5SwnnvEW0T-3vahesaDh57f-qv4FbG1SFAzDvT3rFhre6kFl282VsxV_pynwn_CdvF7fzH2q9NW1ZQHPH1pmdo=@protonmail.com> <20210705050421.GA31145@erisian.com.au> <5e694d37-ac49-3c24-26ee-ed2a5580d76d@mattcorallo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5e694d37-ac49-3c24-26ee-ed2a5580d76d@mattcorallo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Spam-Score-int: -18 X-Spam-Bar: - Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unlimited covenants, was Re: CHECKSIGFROMSTACK/{Verify} BIP for Bitcoin X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2022 06:17:27 -0000 On Mon, Jul 05, 2021 at 09:46:21AM -0400, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote: > More importantly, AJ's point here neuters anti-covanent arguments rather > strongly. > > On 7/5/21 01:04, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > In some sense multisig *alone* enables recursive covenants: a government > > that wants to enforce KYC can require that funds be deposited into > > a multisig of "2 2 CHECKMULTISIG", and that > > "recipient" has gone through KYC. Once deposited to such an address, > > the gov can refus to sign with gov_key unless the funds are being spent > > to a new address that follows the same rules. I couldn't remember where I'd heard this, but it looks like I came across it via Andrew Poelstra's "CAT and Schnorr Tricks II" post [0] (Feb 2021), in which he credits Ethan Heilman for originally coming up with the analogy (in 2019, cf [1]). [0] https://medium.com/blockstream/cat-and-schnorr-tricks-ii-2f6ede3d7bb5 [1] https://twitter.com/Ethan_Heilman/status/1194624166093369345 Cheers, aj