From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38F7DC002D for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 18:35:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21E1960EE2 for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 18:35:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.402 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.402 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, BITCOIN_OBFU_SUBJ=1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mattcorallo.com Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZxDhySUYZPkJ for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 18:35:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail.as397444.net (mail.as397444.net [IPv6:2620:6e:a000:1::99]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5273560EBB for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 18:35:05 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mattcorallo.com; s=1650650464; h=In-Reply-To:From:References:To:Subject: From:Subject:To:Cc:Cc:Reply-To; bh=UjT8f73C1P0MWj1+hDWNcD2O4WsDHsH0zF62Ir7sT5g=; b=an3e9wPUY2Ywij/rjYLBXmdlLs XTrF1d2s/Il9kVFN59ku/QOHhIGn04briMfxnlPDt4V3mbZLA96yO+r8vqrKJLSEWVaX8y3jOYwkg 50FEIcb17t6NEfUns68MHvLw+z2oA5Eb40sciRPRNe+pk6LUxQ6BqPbjqhfGu5XPaPmrWjZ15gsnC bjhyoB74oZjncpus0v+iTRPFLKCXYD8CUEtR4/JbdMea94fwT06fBo7+2dFHtDCqshMxIe7b94mWe 2jLJKXpNeeuiyhdqSvJR81CkIPX/8FPR+de4gCH9rpWAoUoITGsHPAOAO2frkvAYeLIHbyE9uVLer jPw3/yDA==; Received: by mail.as397444.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) (Exim) (envelope-from ) id 1nhy7R-000RAa-Jt; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 18:35:01 +0000 Message-ID: <9a1928aa-5182-3c4f-1e86-f12a5c82f547@mattcorallo.com> Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 11:35:01 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Language: en-US To: James O'Beirne , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion References: <64a34b4d46461da322be51b53ec2eb01@dtrt.org> <4b252ef6f86bbd494a67683f6113f3fe@dtrt.org> From: Matt Corallo In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-DKIM-Note: Keys used to sign are likely public at https://as397444.net/dkim/mattcorallo.com X-DKIM-Note: For more info, see https://as397444.net/dkim/ Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Automatically reverting ("transitory") soft forks, e.g. for CTV 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: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 18:35:06 -0000 On 4/22/22 9:28 AM, James O'Beirne wrote: > > There are at least three or four separate covenants designs that have > > been posted to this list, and I don't see why we're even remotely > > talking about a specific one as something to move forward with at > > this point. > > To my knowledge none of these other proposals (drafts, really) have > actual implementations let alone the many sample usages that exist for > CTV. You can fix this! Don't point to something you can easily remedy in the short-term as an argument for or against something in the long-term. > Given that the "covenants" discussion has been ongoing for years > now, I think the lack of other serious proposals is indicative of the > difficulty inherent in coming up with a preferable alternative to CTV. I'd think its indicative of the lack of interest in serious covenants designs from many of the highly-qualified people who could be working on them. There are many reasons for that. If there's one positive thing from the current total mess, its that hopefully there will be a renewed interest in researching things and forming conclusions. > CTV is about as simple a covenant system as can be devised - its limits > relative to more "general" covenant designs notwithstanding. > The level of review around CTV's design is well beyond the other > sketches for possible designs that this list has seen. [citation needed] Matt