From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Delivery-date: Sat, 14 Jun 2025 07:08:51 -0700 Received: from mail-oa1-f57.google.com ([209.85.160.57]) by mail.fairlystable.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uQRYv-000460-MZ for bitcoindev@gnusha.org; Sat, 14 Jun 2025 07:08:50 -0700 Received: by mail-oa1-f57.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-2ea89b7d8easf2556377fac.0 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2025 07:08:49 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; t=1749910124; cv=pass; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; b=Twz+vk3SwMtg2/k04b3EbWGXJyMge79mmJ2K1SKBABj9IH2K79NROia9NUBRkYp3sz PPjMwUcOF30tQJdgvPcjfxMo9sK+4iD8AqUejzrOZpj+r6itq1p3e44CC4byXmhRWWOZ HGMEQ+pB6Y0HZsayeWZfGhZX8HqSpQo4VbhS/GxDyyDmprxHq5mqWohvnLlpX4B39M9o mBdXVxm/yRnZecRgM+UxmoO1/avsmIRhcFsTHFwADdS+1X2PjiI7+sd+osHvVB+uP32x k2pCsrRjb3nYhj3rZb3nfIfaCE7xwG/iTlwd2IAnmM/RJEAm7Vk+2ysY19UUa9ZIAEoE n/4Q== ARC-Message-Signature: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:sender:dkim-signature :dkim-signature; bh=v8FnU6OzbSkEKCXWRVQiVtavD5wsFrqgzs63xyaLfOc=; fh=zVBKxwn+ecAQR1h8HAOJTFik6RKOtMxgv/ES8Wb7DwU=; b=Ci2OasWpuYExVroub7lZqRuIVryp9JPTKtJ5I3XroAPAe34WXEMQ/0RDocLOVREFhP kKtTFzgw4evk2Ken2reiRt0s+jzjnzIqj9FH9eUDF8vQRhDhViYH7OiIoGzeQZm8wpDC RvI+Zi/O7GIrIk3qygOLaCySaWMz/dkvve/Xi10LYPwixZ0Ivy+Ih9Z8zFhoPEQBvGGF Unu2EqTAx1KGA8kh1GIE+ITutMKZytmnDbku57rJ15MJDIycKCs4WlZmAg6omg0egVVQ xM+I43FCkNK1lcLCKRzFUHEO19AHJt7sJ9oGGqRE4yJfKdoGoThXjSqICkmLOVoSZHhJ HGVA==; darn=gnusha.org ARC-Authentication-Results: i=2; gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b="KJ/IXo5e"; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jameson.lopp@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4864:20::234 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=jameson.lopp@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com; dara=pass header.i=@googlegroups.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20230601; t=1749910124; x=1750514924; darn=gnusha.org; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=v8FnU6OzbSkEKCXWRVQiVtavD5wsFrqgzs63xyaLfOc=; b=F9rIeipzgE/D+WkE7RzHFXdCB4hvP1/VaBHd5p8FZ2H5PHKiY+wmw0BQN4Cv8aCPNo GXWNnPTnChTVJYL6ywQJnTJC4cBmcynnCetPzLS6OXHXacNHPkkZlFQx1QhKEUZtRih/ PplT693Se96LbCDc4Nghw1Gafo0Z8+ruOf5NUcEU/OMglsf2dwDEqwwn15fvIZ1RhHF9 37yds0qzmzgPKX+/yLblhO9TqSUPNFeKkg9N/SeDT5SEbIlb3zSGJl8gDUEDJTvaR3qA fqEqzNjcxxxGZ39sV6vc9v0I9ZpUTiAMtEoigWknljFb8wMY5Yyy4W77UQa+i3a21UUI CObQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1749910124; x=1750514924; darn=gnusha.org; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=v8FnU6OzbSkEKCXWRVQiVtavD5wsFrqgzs63xyaLfOc=; b=ISc68DoX2YqnwGqndO9yrcqNdJhePPhKluS8+ypplTXnsQuRgIk89pUOZjGL3s7sSW 8Em1fsSNUhMr3idypr3xUP4m9fF/axe+qa25TXUtdXxD8EJ5JP7fA1xCD0SebCYfslcH 9JXuroOAPgujo9znvPfu40kGLprblqquH/Ll2LI2bYayAeIhxeFhm1Q2I0gqGLQYBgnz qLxfPxC5smZH90/ui/ubTpYcTthL74LSix71QPmOdS0YRqhSzWM4y409rXFTPg920Y2F r27Omm7lln4as5pJZegqE3mxqhHuQnkUHYi0/sd47R31l5QYIPR6A4zX8RSSZhPdyJrv gO9g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1749910124; x=1750514924; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:x-beenthere:x-gm-message-state:sender:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=v8FnU6OzbSkEKCXWRVQiVtavD5wsFrqgzs63xyaLfOc=; b=uIEfCUH4n/wwDD56oS5r5NwhjECDJJRpBg7Rf1guQ1XrrRLm5W/dmVRv+v3Pn6/HtG VSLk60jKdFA1Ux1HQNJHhyC/0ktgLmPG+8bgVIthv36+D83xMcZUVYastKszmT9dI/e2 Kp79jSAAuVNlTu6KR9lpoEanKbUYLf6LvWX6wj6cMm0DB72xi2P9hDAwvX/Wuls7sIPS bRWkXTJjpxnvfvN7VEqPKFB10DNzOF0on7yTGf8Q4UDRRk3+Cpn/SmmtoksBbehwXUYy GZ4YPd4sN4Glv/LNjatfU3CiRCS4xy3WY7Itgjr7Btg1qIT/mZDsJwHEI87zuo6hP5pH RfdA== Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=2; AJvYcCVcb4GyZ3XladyDGxBetwEvxdGlSn+uSAECvaVO4W32mpXTkh3svVLkh6C97YDnmNJ6PsjIr/QK2Mah@gnusha.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwLPe+CDOk52H8JjBgEiUrB9ykLuUd8avXtFWbohhdfIwNGNp9B XbwGTIKkHugrbTRMB3Gm5GFBxIB6MqUv4nAJ8SrK95Is8yZplpIKgQXZ X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFFXBn86R8NIP+WhGqsocmlOAUvP+6hr2EtpctM3+b580fjoPVowre10kGHYz04S7GJeO1nQg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:64a1:b0:2c1:44a9:fc16 with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-2eaf0bf166bmr1868751fac.38.1749910123816; Sat, 14 Jun 2025 07:08:43 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; h=AZMbMZdd/wdGjkspgiV0buFpmXIbaeZlqRhETfH+tr0J7Rf0FA== Received: by 2002:a05:6871:68c:b0:2da:b91c:91bd with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-2eab6ee08a7ls4327055fac.1.-pod-prod-09-us; Sat, 14 Jun 2025 07:08:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=2; AJvYcCVZxd7+O5+NnRdhkgsoo3QR1NhyNnN37lnj72QL5ofnMkJFzFaNkKxCBf+S/yw9T6y86IWUoC26NJj+@googlegroups.com X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:d53:b0:406:4e0c:9aaa with SMTP id 5614622812f47-40a7c137732mr2132551b6e.14.1749910120839; Sat, 14 Jun 2025 07:08:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 2002:a7b:c386:0:b0:450:ce23:93de with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-453345232cams5e9; Fri, 13 Jun 2025 08:41:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=2; AJvYcCUU7vbg0/cRxDQepxf7BmNLXwwj5CWW3joYXqW1pzfKy1ommDKbn21MvDPLxaoPe0+x+QxV4EeNQUCv@googlegroups.com X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:8b61:b0:441:b3eb:570a with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-4533cacf371mr177875e9.2.1749829313871; Fri, 13 Jun 2025 08:41:53 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1749829313; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; b=HIPORReYaLFLw0YcVyRKTjFy+9qe/k83ZxFJTM9Ui/y9iv5RK+R/jS8ngR9z/vD8cY aDViZF8sFLTbE2OcYVQ3q8sQNroanGpxzCvvf0zswLDY3Nsq/JPzrww/Az0u/D6Bc5v9 NdXK0neZ8pH2TU3FA09wjugcWMRLYIWxnVZlpQyUiiKLqwLZg66AChlQFDUSBR7yUirv u7AjKl2j3R4S3BFbG+WuCf5cGPLkFYobQzHhdjE8W1OdOUdRvpHx2H/NNJM8ubFpatDl pYWJKb6Rna0j9kNZdVqJopcalq342ch3lNzd4G8Vg3GQPZ6YdNoOpY5NGZNlScUkkhs0 5Pwg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=t0KBmzzSNGIV7U32Vtx3HDofIhuhpwdcn2LPh2lIRrc=; fh=OWMxS5qOf6vKSAqp7fwMdn7uZ+AMksQ0JlI34pGq8xQ=; b=cnPc0CYJu9iG7P5DpdMh8kLKe+VL5FnSS2hGqF8eQGQ/NvlFejXaMSS9BoZuSudV0D 4UpZYs2A/4gZnEcsmpyOVtku5RdaydHJxG6H+6wCTAlLtf/gE282D0WsJf0O1AEo8que P+oqHEEbcWXZ1+Y3Q8IXDes2SmA1Nm5UmcMhNEBGsaksTFfPh084S/RDBYaeSxlAuPrv 82RSmWBg/s2T85wMkEOXxpD/XUz08QaCv/ws7p4jCtwDvkc+pn6ds+HKmL/q9JrhOJ9P Ef1x2lV8ABaJ05D1Egu8kFOxyh32yom9a+lak8LD7Mt2uKRO5UWJ8KgPQlD6bTHxcEQl QSbw==; dara=google.com ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b="KJ/IXo5e"; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jameson.lopp@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4864:20::234 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=jameson.lopp@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com; dara=pass header.i=@googlegroups.com Received: from mail-lj1-x234.google.com (mail-lj1-x234.google.com. [2a00:1450:4864:20::234]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 5b1f17b1804b1-4532de99249si1058705e9.2.2025.06.13.08.41.53 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 13 Jun 2025 08:41:53 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jameson.lopp@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4864:20::234 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::234; Received: by mail-lj1-x234.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-32add56e9ddso19113201fa.2 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2025 08:41:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVRlck/VXJzQLqoywSgIUCihew3KjdJcQEjdggYCi8+P4GGWNqZkAPmeqPTCBM1V9J9Am9+GVWFAQWI@googlegroups.com X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncvigRQqy0irw3z+4wcsc+mS4PLaFZOyr+f47VGB+TmMMKIdk95nkKY6OyJjTrC QJvWVOT4f9SPw9IDlRSgp3zwK1lzLRGLUlKkGEtalwRwcHG2SW7x47xEqtDTgJQXzsMqhCIOQcG ippwkwJu/Ij3qyVkf7eXgTmaVq4ib8UWzTgGAN5p/MysIz/yDYb5NtIQ== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:be0a:0:b0:32a:8764:ecf1 with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-32b3e9cab70mr9393201fa.4.1749829312156; Fri, 13 Jun 2025 08:41:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <46349b6c-ccec-4378-8721-aecec22752e7@mattcorallo.com> <8d158e3d-b3cc-44b6-b71b-ab2e733c047c@mattcorallo.com> In-Reply-To: From: Jameson Lopp Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 11:41:40 -0400 X-Gm-Features: AX0GCFswIlvKmpvQg6QFiNfuH0nRss1dhnHsbqXW2yuJgjli3CCKC_WOe-aBq2A Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] CTV + CSFS: a letter To: Antoine Poinsot Cc: Matt Corallo , Andrew Poelstra , Bitcoin Development Mailing List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000919a53063775e22c" X-Original-Sender: jameson.lopp@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b="KJ/IXo5e"; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jameson.lopp@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4864:20::234 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=jameson.lopp@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com; dara=pass header.i=@googlegroups.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 (/) --000000000000919a53063775e22c Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Casa (and many other companies focused on custody products) would love to see vaulting functionality. I don't think any of us are too hung up on the details of the particular implementation - we would rather have a "good" tool than not have any tool because consensus has not been achieved for a "perfect" solution. What is the problem that makes vaults desirable? It's frankly because there's no such thing as perfect security. Even if one designs an architecture that is nearly perfectly secure against external threats, the issue of internal threats (such as oneself, via social engineering) will remain. The ability to require high value funds to sit in a "quarantine / cooldown" address for some period of time before they can be sent to an arbitrary address enables additional security measures a la watchtowers to be designed. Being your own bank is still an incredibly scary proposition because it's quite difficult to design custody solutions that tolerate failures without leading to catastrophic loss. The more tools that custody application engineers have available to them, the more guardrails we can build into wallet software, and thus hopefully the more comfortable we can make the general public with the idea of taking on the responsibility of self custody. To be clear, I'm not aware of CSFS improving the vaulting functionality already available via CTV. As far as I can tell, CSFS is one of the least controversial opcodes proposed in a long time and just seems to be an all-around win with no risks / trade-offs, so why not bundle it in? I'm not sure how to parse Antoine's claim that CTV+CSFS doesn't enable vaults given that there has already been a CTV vault client proof of concept for 3 years: https://github.com/jamesob/simple-ctv-vault On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 9:07=E2=80=AFAM Antoine Poinsot wrote: > Jameson, > > Thanks for sharing. Although i grew more skeptical of the reactive > security model of vaults as i implemented them in practice for real users= , > i can appreciate people's mileage may vary. > > That said, consensus-enforced vaults require a mechanism to forward any > amount received on a script A to a pre-committed script B. CTV+CSFS does > not enable this, and a primitive that actually does (like CCV) is more > controversial because of its potency. I see the CTV+CSFS bundle as > maximizing "bang for your buck" in terms of capabilities enabled compared > to the accompanying risk. If we do want vaults, then we need to get past > the MEVil concerns and much more interesting primitives are actually on t= he > table. > > I also appreciate that CTV is nice to have for CCV vaults, but a potentia= l > future use case that is not enabled by one proposal cannot be used to > motivate said proposal. > > Best, > Antoine Poinsot > On Friday, June 13th, 2025 at 7:15 AM, Jameson Lopp < > jameson.lopp@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Unlike a generic "We Want Things" sign-on letter, individual messages > indicating desire to utilize features is way more compelling. > > Then I submit my essay from 2 years ago ( > https://blog.casa.io/why-bitcoin-needs-covenants/) and will quote myself: > > "There are clearly a LOT of use cases that could potentially be unlocked > with the right kind of covenant implementation. Personally, having spent = 8 > years working on high security multi-signature wallets, I'm most interest= ed > in vaults. I believe the value they offer is quite straightforward and is > applicable to every single self-custody bitcoin user, regardless of what > type of wallet they are running." > > - Jameson > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 6:54=E2=80=AFPM Matt Corallo > wrote: > >> To be fair to James, in my (luckily rather brief) experience with >> Bitcoin-consensus-letter-writing, >> its nearly impossible to forge a statement that everyone agrees to that >> is consistently interpreted. >> >> Matt >> >> On 6/12/25 3:51 PM, Andrew Poelstra wrote: >> > Le Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 02:38:13PM -0400, James O'Beirne a =C3=A9crit = : >> >> >> >> As the person who coordinated the letter, I can say that this is not = an >> >> accurate characterization of the signers' intent. Everyone who signed >> >> explicitly wants to see the imminent review, integration, and >> activation >> >> planning for CTV+CSFS specifically. The letter is intentionally >> concise to >> >> make sure there are no misunderstandings about that. >> >> >> >> I spoke to each person on the original list of signatories who either >> did >> >> (or didn't) sign and this was made very clear. Some people didn't sig= n >> as a >> >> result of what the letter says. >> >> >> > >> > The letter asks Core to "prioritize the review and integration" on an >> > accelerated timeline, and that this will "allow" for "activation >> planning". >> > >> > Early drafts of the letter did ask for actual integration and even >> > activation, but I did not sign any of those early drafts. It was not >> > until the language was weakened to be about priorities and planning (a= nd >> > to be a "respectful ask" rather some sort of demand) that I signed on. >> > >> > >> > The letter is concise but unfortunately I think Matt is correct that i= t >> > offers a broad range of interpretations, even among the signers. >> > >> > >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group= s >> "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send a= n >> email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/f8b37a59-0897-40df-a08e-781= 2c806a716%40mattcorallo.com >> . >> > -- > 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/CADL_X_fxwKLdst9tYQqabUsJgu4= 7xhCbwpmyq97ZB-SLWQC9Xw%40mail.gmail.com > . > > > --=20 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 e= mail to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/= CADL_X_faQhCGS78y0Nggm_h%3Dx_cEtshhbrZDDhQ%3DFEgbDXkc-Q%40mail.gmail.com. --000000000000919a53063775e22c Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Casa (and many other companies focused on custody products= ) would love to see vaulting functionality. I don't think any of us are= too hung up on the details of the particular implementation - we would rat= her have a "good" tool than not have any tool because consensus h= as not been achieved for a "perfect" solution.

What is the problem that makes vaults desirable? It's frankly because = there's no such thing as perfect security. Even if one designs an archi= tecture that is nearly perfectly secure against external threats, the issue= of internal threats (such as oneself, via social engineering) will remain.= The ability to require high value funds to sit in a "quarantine / coo= ldown" address for some period of time before they can be sent to an a= rbitrary address enables additional security measures a la watchtowers to b= e designed. Being your own bank is still an incredibly scary proposition be= cause it's quite difficult to design custody solutions that tolerate fa= ilures without leading to catastrophic loss. The more tools that custody ap= plication engineers have available to them, the more guardrails we can buil= d into wallet software, and thus hopefully the more comfortable we can make= the general public with the idea of taking on the responsibility of self c= ustody.

To be clear, I'm not aware of CSFS imp= roving the vaulting functionality already available via CTV. As far as I ca= n tell, CSFS is one of the least controversial opcodes proposed in a long t= ime and just seems to be an all-around win with no risks / trade-offs, so w= hy not bundle it in?

I'm not sure how to parse= Antoine's claim that CTV+CSFS doesn't enable vaults given that the= re has already been a CTV vault client proof of concept for 3 years: https://github.com/jameso= b/simple-ctv-vault

On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 9= :07=E2=80=AFAM Antoine Poinsot <darosior@protonmail.com> wrote:
Jameson,

Thanks for sharing. Although i grew more skeptical of the reactive securi= ty model of vaults as i implemented them in practice for real users, i can = appreciate people's mileage may vary.

That said, consensus-enforced vaults require a mec= hanism to forward any amount received on a script A to a pre-committed scri= pt B. CTV+CSFS does not enable this, and a primitive that actually does (li= ke CCV) is more controversial because of its potency. I see the CTV+CSFS bu= ndle as maximizing "bang for your buck" in terms of capabilities = enabled compared to the accompanying risk. If we do want vaults, then we ne= ed to get past the MEVil concerns and much more interesting primitives are = actually on the table.

I also appreciate that CTV is nice to have for CCV vaults, but a = potential future use case that is not enabled by one proposal cannot be use= d to motivate said proposal.

Best,
Antoine Poinsot
On Friday, June 13th, 2025 at 7:15 AM, Jameson Lopp <jameson.lopp@gmail.com= > wrote:
> Unlike a generic "We Want Things&quo= t; sign-on letter, individual messages indicating desire to utilize feature= s is way more compelling.

Then I submit my essay from 2 = years ago (https://blog.casa.io/w= hy-bitcoin-needs-covenants/) and will quote myself:

"There are clearly a LOT of use cases that could potentially be = unlocked with the right kind of covenant implementation. Personally, having= spent 8 years working on high security multi-signature wallets, I'm mo= st interested in vaults. I believe the value they offer is quite straightfo= rward and is applicable to every single self-custody bitcoin user, regardle= ss of what type of wallet they are running."

= - Jameson

On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 6:54=E2=80=AFPM Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com> wrote:
To be fair to James, in my (lu= ckily rather brief) experience with Bitcoin-consensus-letter-writing,
its nearly impossible to forge a statement that everyone agrees to that is = consistently interpreted.

Matt

On 6/12/25 3:51 PM, Andrew Poelstra wrote:
> Le Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 02:38:13PM -0400, James O'Beirne a =C3=A9c= rit :
>>
>> As the person who coordinated the letter, I can say that this is n= ot an
>> accurate characterization of the signers' intent. Everyone who= signed
>> explicitly wants to see the imminent review, integration, and acti= vation
>> planning for CTV+CSFS specifically. The letter is intentionally co= ncise to
>> make sure there are no misunderstandings about that.
>>
>> I spoke to each person on the original list of signatories who eit= her did
>> (or didn't) sign and this was made very clear. Some people did= n't sign as a
>> result of what the letter says.
>>
>
> The letter asks Core to "prioritize the review and integration&qu= ot; on an
> accelerated timeline, and that this will "allow" for "a= ctivation planning".
>
> Early drafts of the letter did ask for actual integration and even
> activation, but I did not sign any of those early drafts. It was not > until the language was weakened to be about priorities and planning (a= nd
> to be a "respectful ask" rather some sort of demand) that I = signed on.
>
>
> The letter is concise but unfortunately I think Matt is correct that i= t
> offers a broad range of interpretations, even among the signers.
>
>

--
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 bitcoindev+unsubscribe@goo= glegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d= /msgid/bitcoindev/f8b37a59-0897-40df-a08e-7812c806a716%40mattcorallo.com.

--
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 bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googl= egroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups= .google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CADL_X_fxwKLdst9tYQqabUsJgu47xhCbwpmyq97ZB-S= LWQC9Xw%40mail.gmail.com.

--
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/bitcoindev/CADL_X_faQhCGS78y0Nggm_h%3Dx_cEtshhbrZDDhQ%3DFEgbDXkc-Q%= 40mail.gmail.com.
--000000000000919a53063775e22c--