Hi Rusty,
One of the common sentiments thats been expressed over the last few months is that more people want to see experimentation with different applications using covenants. I really like this proposal because in addition to offering a cleaner upgrade/extension path than adding “CTV++” as a new opcode in a few years, it also seems like it would make it very easy to create prototype applications to game out new ideas:
If the “only this combination of fields are valid, otherwise OP_SUCCESS” check is just comparing with a list of bitmasks for permissible field combinations (which right now is a list of length 1), it seems like it would be *very* easy for people who want to play with other covenant field sets to just add the relevant bitmasks and then go spin up a signet to build applications.
Being able to make a very targeted change like that to enable experimentation is super cool. Thanks for sharing!
Alex
Hi all,
TL;DR: a v1 tapscript opcode for generic covenants, but
OP_SUCCESS unless it's used a-la OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY. This gives an
obvious use case, with clean future expansion. OP_NOP4 can be
repurposed in future as a shortcut, if experience shows that to be a
useful optimization.
(This proposal builds on Russell O'Connor's TXHASH[1], with Anthony
Towns' modification via extending the opcode[2]; I also notice on
re-reading that James Lu had a similar restriction idea[3]).
Details
-------
OP_TX, when inside v1 tapscript, is followed by 4 bytes of flags.
Unknown flag patterns are OP_SUCCESS, though for thoroughness some future
potential uses are documented here. Note that pushing more than 1000
elements on the stack or an element more than 512 bytes will hit the
BIP-342 resource limits and fail.
Defined bits
------------
(Only those marked with * have to be defined for this soft fork; the
others can have semantics later).
OPTX_SEPARATELY: treat fields separately (vs concatenating)
OPTX_UNHASHED: push on the stack without hashing (vs SHA256 before push)
- The first nicely sidesteps the lack of OP_CAT, and the latter allows
OP_TXHASH semantics (and avoid stack element limits).
OPTX_SELECT_VERSION*: version
OPTX_SELECT_LOCKTIME*: nLocktime
OPTX_SELECT_INPUTNUM*: current input number
OPTX_SELECT_INPUTCOUNT*: number of inputs
OPTX_SELECT_OUTPUTCOUNT*: number of outputs
OPTX_INPUT_SINGLE: if set, pop input number off stack to apply to
OPTX_SELECT_INPUT_*, otherwise iterate through all.
OPTX_SELECT_INPUT_TXID: txid
OPTX_SELECT_INPUT_OUTNUM: txout index
OPTX_SELECT_INPUT_NSEQUENCE*: sequence number
OPTX_SELECT_INPUT_AMOUNT32x2: sats in, as a high-low u31 pair
OPTX_SELECT_INPUT_SCRIPT*: input scriptsig
OPTX_SELECT_INPUT_TAPBRANCH: ?
OPTX_SELECT_INPUT_TAPLEAF: ?
OPTX_OUTPUT_SINGLE: if set, pop input number off stack to apply to
OPTX_SELECT_OUTPUT_*, otherwise iterate through all.
OPTX_SELECT_OUTPUT_AMOUNT32x2*: sats out, as a high-low u31 pair
OPTX_SELECT_OUTPUT_SCRIPTPUBKEY*: output scriptpubkey
OPTX_SELECT_19...OPTX_SELECT_31: future expansion.
OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY is approximated by the following flags:
OPTX_SELECT_VERSION
OPTX_SELECT_LOCKTIME
OPTX_SELECT_INPUTCOUNT
OPTX_SELECT_INPUT_SCRIPT
OPTX_SELECT_INPUT_NSEQUENCE
OPTX_SELECT_OUTPUTCOUNT
OPTX_SELECT_OUTPUT_AMOUNT32x2
OPTX_SELECT_OUTPUT_SCRIPTPUBKEY
OPTX_SELECT_INPUTNUM
All other flag combinations result in OP_SUCCESS.
Discussion
----------
By enumerating exactly what can be committed to, it's absolutely clear
what is and isn't committed (and what you need to think about!).
The bits which separate concatenation and hashing provide a simple
mechanism for template-style (i.e. CTV-style) commitments, or for
programatic treatment of individual elements (e.g. amounts, though the
two s31 style is awkward: a 64-bit push flag could be added in future).
The lack of double-hashing of scriptsigs and other fields means we
cannot simply re-use hashing done for SIGHASH_ALL.
The OP_SUCCESS semantic is only valid in tapscript v1, so this does not
allow covenants for v0 segwit or pre-segwit inputs. If covenants prove
useful, dedicated opcodes can be provided for those cases (a-la
OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY).
Cheers,
Rusty.
[1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-January/019813.html
[2] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-January/019819.html
[3] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-January/019816.html
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Alex Schoof