From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Delivery-date: Tue, 31 Dec 2024 00:32:36 -0800 Received: from mail-yb1-f183.google.com ([209.85.219.183]) by mail.fairlystable.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tSXg3-0003Do-CN for bitcoindev@gnusha.org; Tue, 31 Dec 2024 00:32:36 -0800 Received: by mail-yb1-f183.google.com with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-e3a0d165daesf18746285276.1 for ; Tue, 31 Dec 2024 00:32:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20230601; t=1735633949; x=1736238749; darn=gnusha.org; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-sender:mime-version :subject:message-id:to:from:date:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=Fal+BaIvgY8XYiqPP0zDtCJwm0MHRXPQFrrkQWRlmm8=; b=moZB+UUxrNZXN0l/+eAG8YGXr8kslrkJ8FCOzT+gjlCgclLs5qlTleYPjPJFPZexzy mz36bv+mbK3j104uF7kljguL/tzMpRYbDYupsSiWWoT/5ioKpsn7hokAY6qw760sjXKb AzfLbhVtGHHSf1J8KPAIE/av0qu3OZnohb0jYipvn/2SP3sqM06DMn+owWl3260+TDl7 bYJ76lzBckP0Qy2OdlH5rYxPHe8aDwwtbyh+smKJ5sefa31Sm03RPH6Jni/+a4AKUR+W XQisjMLfai5+VA2fnVezMC+rtR9Xxg+K4KITXAxKjkRvYbtynGSFQ3mQED4wzYsDsLGo GEiA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1735633949; x=1736238749; darn=gnusha.org; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-sender:mime-version :subject:message-id:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=Fal+BaIvgY8XYiqPP0zDtCJwm0MHRXPQFrrkQWRlmm8=; b=Pv6tjOLconPHSauk9emzckEonlkfMXCSJg8V/AmReVKJZ07T8vi539HZ9tqiPul7uB eI2dFA6Cxjbk0FKI5vT1VVqVveh0dt3nG5Dx+euws4andjahpE/O29SMP/q6/hlM+Jvg E+qmoyDSh7M24YFMDHNOc4BEObIUUhYBOXLijPu4ZduxHwaQONZccf8Wqf6v6xC0H2FR vmxRtdRX4sWoMc2bQp9dggmVobBgWs0IJSq8qMQh9N/A3R0lnN+3PVcjk0apIBA+mHZn UH+1EdznhkUhnQzk83R6G5MbXmReFKrF0v0BsB0hZjFng9ZgMrsQ2AUrNfs41NVKH/3y 0Pew== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1735633949; x=1736238749; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-sender:mime-version :subject:message-id:to:from:date:x-beenthere:x-gm-message-state :sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Fal+BaIvgY8XYiqPP0zDtCJwm0MHRXPQFrrkQWRlmm8=; b=SH0t3s3JG2vuTZk964g1deR5krfKtl/0QMYA3vcBc1mHmta5dKQDVTy+n2ecqgAAxw CkmSHK0R/Xw2Qo/6qwltOQgKUtATozAEx0cA2kcdOKtHFtgdZBPYZMxNZiB6YXkVA9Yp gRwrsbumi0l/v3KRQwNzqsKG2DBcHKWh/hM3SIKf4GmmyWZlv4LPZifCuBh+FXVFxPj2 wG5sLcGiOppzVs6TgNpkRH5796mvkMx3phQm10Z3ov35tuA+//9R1OoASnC6CNaAiR7W cqbZkJlmHTQIlP9FfqxOXuyXObNd57CWM9vQ843MnmXhvrrTTKc425apiT+gy8iXd4mS cBXw== Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVo10kMtFGIjFlGJ/g8274masfxEPzv7LB7FErDed3JIM2WzyNrb4KbR7dgz6ud8clMAXuwOosN8pSy@gnusha.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzDp9i4tb2U0jR6tBar0qFIGuhnd4VM5X84q1kSYCNi66bdE3iu KiXCOdwc84tfEo04dT65cfYY/SKdIRbqA5x5lE4pY3ZuoXW4p3K/ X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFQejO09O3RO6OKGUY5ldGznsrERS3Prfar6m6L5pRy3tJWYJxmpkxZ4ucmrb0Nv0WnwMFZSQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:4986:b0:6ef:6107:69b9 with SMTP id 00721157ae682-6f3f80de66bmr294526547b3.7.1735633948568; Tue, 31 Dec 2024 00:32:28 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com Received: by 2002:a25:ae43:0:b0:e48:8566:cdf0 with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-e537608e8c6ls1668420276.1.-pod-prod-02-us; Tue, 31 Dec 2024 00:32:25 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:640b:b0:6ea:6e41:1a9a with SMTP id 00721157ae682-6f3f8136a38mr236689957b3.25.1735633945172; Tue, 31 Dec 2024 00:32:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by 2002:a81:ad03:0:b0:6ef:892f:89f3 with SMTP id 00721157ae682-6f3f57ea50dms7b3; Tue, 31 Dec 2024 00:23:29 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:4b93:b0:6e9:e097:718c with SMTP id 00721157ae682-6f3f80de76bmr293438797b3.6.1735633408517; Tue, 31 Dec 2024 00:23:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2024 00:23:28 -0800 (PST) From: /dev /fd0 To: Bitcoin Development Mailing List Message-Id: <38a6f252-afe9-4155-a341-11a42a9a9007n@googlegroups.com> Subject: [bitcoindev] Summary: Covenants Support - Bitcoin Wiki MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_917834_1788158514.1735633408289" X-Original-Sender: alicexbtong@gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 786775582512 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) ------=_Part_917834_1788158514.1735633408289 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_917835_1707318338.1735633408289" ------=_Part_917835_1707318338.1735633408289 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi Bitcoin Developers, I had shared covenants support wiki page link here on [mailing list][1] in the last week of November 2024. Multiple changes were made based on the feedback: - Removed 'community support' from 'No'. Rephrased definitions for 'Prefer' and 'Evaluating'. - Added LNHANCE category for a combination of opcodes. - Added links for BIP drafts and a column for 'rationale'. - Created a separate table for evaluations without a rationale. Murch and Gloria shared their feedback in the bitcoin optech [podcast 333][2]. I have started working on a [page][3] that lists use cases, prototype links and primitives used. We can still add more use cases in it. This list does not include use cases enabled by [OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK][4] alone or in combination with other opcodes like [LN SYMMETRY][5]. I had verified each entry to avoid spam and fake evaluations. Rearden was assigned moderator permissions on 8 December 2024 by Theymos to help me with the moderations. Some edits have been approved by other moderators. Some insights from the table that could help developers working on different covenant proposals: 1. Multiple ways to achieve LN symmetry were discovered. SIGHASH_APO lacks interest among developers, contrary to the belief prior to this exercise. 2. OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK has unanimous support and is a part of multiple covenant proposals. 3. OP_PAIRCOMMIT, OP_INTERNALKEY and OP_CHECKCONTRACTVERIFY are not reviewed by enough developers. OP_PARCOMMIT seems to be controversial at this moment. Objections: ``` ====================== SIGHASH_APO ====================== LN SYMMETRY is possible with combination of a few opcodes which is more efficient. Its not the best option for covenants and cannot be used to improve Ark. Some developers prefer opcodes and not sighash flags. Seems to be the result of an attempt to fix signatures to make them work for a specific use-case, but the end-result is hard-to-reason (for me) and not flexible. In general, SIGHASH flags are an encoding of specific predicates on the transaction, and I think the Script is better suited to carry the predicate. There is no interesting SIGHASH flag that couldn't be functionally simulated by introspection + CHECKSIGFROMSTACK (or other Script-based approaches), and that seems to me a much cleaner and ergonomic way to achieve the same goals. ====================== OP_TXHASH ====================== More expressive, many flag configurations, untested and undesirable use cases. Unaddressed comments in the BIP and the delay doesn't make sense because OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY can be upgraded later to achieve the same thing. Makes hash caching complex, potentially opening up DoS vectors or quadratic sighash. Most templates you'd obtain with various combinations of parameters are meaningless. It implements state-carrying UTXOs in a very dirty way: adding additional inputs/outputs with no other meaning than "storing some state". This is ugly, inefficient, and bloats the UTXO set - and it definitely will happen if TXHASH is enabled without also enabling a clean way to carry state. Follow up with an upgrade to OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY can fine tune it to what people are actually using covenants for, instead of prematurely optimizing everything with no data. ====================== OP_VAULT ====================== No demand for vaults. Customized for a specific use case. ====================== OP_CAT ====================== Can be used for various complex scripts including undesirable use cases (DEX, AMM and Hashrate Escrow). Enables granular transaction introspection through abuse of schnorr signatures and OP_CHECKSIG. Can be used for interesting use cases but alone does it poorly and inefficiently. People can and will litter the chain with inefficient/ugly Scripts if activated alone. Since it happens to enable generic introspection by accident, and therefore an ugly version of state-carrying UTXOs, it shouldn't be enabled without more ergonomic opcodes for those use cases. ====================== OP_INTERNALKEY ====================== There are 3 'No' in the table, I couldn't find anything relevant in the rationales. ====================== OP_PAIRCOMMIT ====================== Adds unnecessary complexity, redundant if OP_CAT is activated in future and added for specific use case. LN SYMMETRY is possible without this opcode. It does not compose with anything that involves transaction introspection due to its specified tagged hash. Some developers prefer OP_CAT. Not convinced it is impossible that there is no way to simulate CAT with PAIRCOMMIT, nor confident how much less powerful PAIRCOMMIT is than CAT. ====================== OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY ====================== Limited in scope and not recursive. ``` I have tried my best to remain unbiased in writing this summary and approving edits. There are a few things that I want to share and it could be a result of the aggressive marketing: - A spammer had edited the table to remove all evaluations except in favor of OP_CAT and it was rejected. - [Rationale][6] added by Aaron (sCrypt) does not mention anything about other opcodes and SIGHASH_APO. It is only focused on OP_CAT however evaluations exist in the table. - I [requested][7] Udev (CatSwap) to add details about evaluation of other opcodes and SIGHASH_APO. - Last [edit][8] by Roujiamo (bitdollar) has a rationale with incorrect signet stats and seems to be rephrased version of another rationale. Evaluation had 'weak' for OP_CTV before adding the rationale. - An edit with duplicate rationale (in support of OP_CAT) was rejected because sharing the link for a rationale submitted by other developer adds no value in the table. Evaluations without a rationale have some 'No' in different cells. Although none of them are backed by a rationale so cannot be considered for consensus discussion. The table is still updated regularly so you may see some of them with a rationale in 2025. Any suggestions to help achieve technical consensus are most welcome. What's next? - More rationales in the table - Discuss objections on mailing list (if any) - Workshops - Add a table for economic nodes and their opinion - Build activation client and discuss parameters Finally, I would thank all the developers who added their evaluations in the table and everyone who shared updates on twitter. It was a coordinated effort to reach some technical consensus. You can read all the rationales in detail to understand different perspectives and reasons to support a combination of opcodes over others. [1]: https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/fdxkE1Al4TI/m/CeEuls2IAQAJ [2]: https://bitcoinops.org/en/podcast/2024/12/17/ [3]: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Covenants_Uses [4]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0348.md [5]: https://gist.github.com/Ademan/4a14614fa850511d63a5b2a9b5104cb7 [6]: https://gist.github.com/gitzhou/dc92c41db1987db16fe665c26bc56dd9 [7]: https://gist.github.com/udevswap/b768d20d62549922b9e72428ef9eb608?permalink_comment_id=5359072#gistcomment-5359072 [8]: https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Covenants_support&diff=prev&oldid=70520 /dev/fd0 floppy disk guy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/38a6f252-afe9-4155-a341-11a42a9a9007n%40googlegroups.com. ------=_Part_917835_1707318338.1735633408289 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Bitcoin Developers,

I had shared covenants support wiki page = link here on [mailing list][1] in the last week of November 2024. Multiple = changes were made based on the feedback:

- Removed 'community su= pport' from 'No'. Rephrased definitions for 'Prefer' and 'Evaluating'.
- Added LNHANCE category for a combination of opcodes.
- Added links = for BIP drafts and a column for 'rationale'.
- Created a separate tabl= e for evaluations without a rationale.

Murch and Gloria shared t= heir feedback in the bitcoin optech [podcast 333][2]. I have started workin= g on a [page][3] that lists use cases, prototype links and primitives used.= We can still add more use cases in it. This list does not include use case= s enabled by [OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK][4] alone or in combination with other o= pcodes like [LN SYMMETRY][5].

I had verified each entry to avoid= spam and fake evaluations. Rearden was assigned moderator permissions on 8= December 2024 by Theymos to help me with the moderations. Some edits have = been approved by other moderators.

Some insights from the table = that could help developers working on different covenant proposals:
1. Multiple ways to achieve LN symmetry were discovered. SIGHASH_APO la= cks interest among developers, contrary to the belief prior to this exercis= e.
2. OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK has unanimous support and is a part of mult= iple covenant proposals.
3. OP_PAIRCOMMIT, OP_INTERNALKEY and OP_CHECK= CONTRACTVERIFY are not reviewed by enough developers. OP_PARCOMMIT seems to= be controversial at this moment.

Objections:

```
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
S= IGHASH_APO
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D

LN SYMMETRY is possible with combination of a few opco= des which is more efficient. Its not the best option for covenants and cann= ot be used to improve Ark. Some developers prefer opcodes and not sighash f= lags.

Seems to be the result of an attempt to fix signatures to = make them work for a specific use-case, but the end-result is hard-to-reaso= n (for me) and not flexible. In general, SIGHASH flags are an encoding of s= pecific predicates on the transaction, and I think the Script is better sui= ted to carry the predicate. There is no interesting SIGHASH flag that could= n't be functionally simulated by introspection + CHECKSIGFROMSTACK (or othe= r Script-based approaches), and that seems to me a much cleaner and ergonom= ic way to achieve the same goals.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
OP_TXHASH
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

More expressive= , many flag configurations, untested and undesirable use cases. Unaddressed= comments in the BIP and the delay doesn't make sense because OP_CHECKTEMPL= ATEVERIFY can be upgraded later to achieve the same thing. Makes hash cachi= ng complex, potentially opening up DoS vectors or quadratic sighash.
<= br />Most templates you'd obtain with various combinations of parameters ar= e meaningless. It implements state-carrying UTXOs in a very dirty way: addi= ng additional inputs/outputs with no other meaning than "storing some state= ". This is ugly, inefficient, and bloats the UTXO set - and it definitely w= ill happen if TXHASH is enabled without also enabling a clean way to carry = state.

Follow up with an upgrade to OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY can f= ine tune it to what people are actually using covenants for, instead of pre= maturely optimizing everything with no data.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
OP_VAULT
=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

No = demand for vaults. Customized for a specific use case.

=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
OP_CAT
= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Can be used for various complex scripts including undesirable use cases = (DEX, AMM and Hashrate Escrow). Enables granular transaction introspection = through abuse of schnorr signatures and OP_CHECKSIG. Can be used for intere= sting use cases but alone does it poorly and inefficiently.

Peop= le can and will litter the chain with inefficient/ugly Scripts if activated= alone. Since it happens to enable generic introspection by accident, and t= herefore an ugly version of state-carrying UTXOs, it shouldn't be enabled w= ithout more ergonomic opcodes for those use cases.

=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
OP_INTERNALKEY<= br />=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

There are 3 'No' in the table, I couldn't find anything relevant in= the rationales.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
OP_PAIRCOMMIT
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Adds unnecessary complex= ity, redundant if OP_CAT is activated in future and added for specific use = case. LN SYMMETRY is possible without this opcode. It does not compose with= anything that involves transaction introspection due to its specified tagg= ed hash. Some developers prefer OP_CAT.

Not convinced it is impo= ssible that there is no way to simulate CAT with PAIRCOMMIT, nor confident = how much less powerful PAIRCOMMIT is than CAT.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVE= RIFY
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D

Limited in scope and not recursive.
```

I ha= ve tried my best to remain unbiased in writing this summary and approving e= dits. There are a few things that I want to share and it could be a result = of the aggressive marketing:

- A spammer had edited the table to= remove all evaluations except in favor of OP_CAT and it was rejected.
- [Rationale][6] added by Aaron (sCrypt) does not mention anything about o= ther opcodes and SIGHASH_APO. It is only focused on OP_CAT however evaluati= ons exist in the table.
- I [requested][7] Udev (CatSwap) to add detai= ls about evaluation of other opcodes and SIGHASH_APO.
- Last [edit][8]= by Roujiamo (bitdollar) has a rationale with incorrect signet stats and se= ems to be rephrased version of another rationale. Evaluation had 'weak' for= OP_CTV before adding the rationale.
- An edit with duplicate rational= e (in support of OP_CAT) was rejected because sharing the link for a ration= ale submitted by other developer adds no value in the table.

Eva= luations without a rationale have some 'No' in different cells. Although no= ne of them are backed by a rationale so cannot be considered for consensus = discussion. The table is still updated regularly so you may see some of the= m with a rationale in 2025. Any suggestions to help achieve technical conse= nsus are most welcome.

What's next?

- More rationales= in the table
- Discuss objections on mailing list (if any)
- Wor= kshops
- Add a table for economic nodes and their opinion
- Build= activation client and discuss parameters

Finally, I would thank= all the developers who added their evaluations in the table and everyone w= ho shared updates on twitter. It was a coordinated effort to reach some tec= hnical consensus. You can read all the rationales in detail to understand d= ifferent perspectives and reasons to support a combination of opcodes over = others.

[1]: https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/fdxkE1Al4T= I/m/CeEuls2IAQAJ
[2]: https://bitcoinops.org/en/podcast/2024/12/17/[3]: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Covenants_Uses
[4]: https://github.= com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0348.md
[5]: https://gist.github.com/= Ademan/4a14614fa850511d63a5b2a9b5104cb7
[6]: https://gist.github.com/g= itzhou/dc92c41db1987db16fe665c26bc56dd9
[7]: https://gist.github.com/u= devswap/b768d20d62549922b9e72428ef9eb608?permalink_comment_id=3D5359072#gis= tcomment-5359072
[8]: https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=3DCovena= nts_support&diff=3Dprev&oldid=3D70520

/dev/fd0
flop= py disk guy

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bitcoind= ev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoind= ev/38a6f252-afe9-4155-a341-11a42a9a9007n%40googlegroups.com.
------=_Part_917835_1707318338.1735633408289-- ------=_Part_917834_1788158514.1735633408289--