From: Nadav Ivgi <nadav@shesek.info>
To: darosior <darosior@protonmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] ANYPREVOUT in place of CTV
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 19:57:48 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGXD5f3VrYQTXHoWEoj6bFsXKZ6C_FHXm8_FNuJZUm_yKpKfcg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <p3P0m2_aNXd-4oYhFjCKJyI8zQXahmZed6bv7lnj9M9HbP9gMqMtJr-pP7XRAPs-rn_fJuGu1cv9ero5i8f0cvyZrMXYPzPx17CxJ2ZSvRk=@protonmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2866 bytes --]
darosior via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> i doubt CTV is necessary nor sufficient for this
I would be interested to hear more on this.
Is it not necessary because you can exchange and store pre-signed
transactions instead?
What purpose is it not sufficient for? There are some vault designs out
there that are able to achieve interesting properties with CTV, like James
O'Beirne's simple-ctv-vault:
https://github.com/jamesob/simple-ctv-vault
(the basic design expressed in Minsc:
https://min.sc/nextc/#gist=001cf1fcb0e24ca9f3614c4db9bfe57d:4)
On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 2:23 PM darosior via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I would like to know people's sentiment about doing (a very slightly
> tweaked version of) BIP118 in place of
> (or before doing) BIP119.
>
> SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT and its precedent iterations have been discussed for
> over 6 years. It presents proven and
> implemented usecases, that are demanded and (please someone correct me if
> i'm wrong) more widely accepted than
> CTV's.
>
> SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUTANYSCRIPT, if its "ANYONECANPAY" behaviour is made
> optional [0], can emulate CTV just fine.
> Sure then you can't have bare or Segwit v0 CTV, and it's a bit more
> expensive to use. But we can consider CTV
> an optimization of APO-AS covenants.
>
> CTV advocates have been presenting vaults as the flagship usecase.
> Although as someone who've been trying to
> implement practical vaults for the past 2 years i doubt CTV is necessary
> nor sufficient for this (but still
> useful!), using APO-AS covers it. And it's not a couple dozen more virtual
> bytes that are going to matter for
> a potential vault user.
>
> If after some time all of us who are currently dubious about CTV's stated
> usecases are proven wrong by onchain
> usage of a less efficient construction to achieve the same goal, we could
> roll-out CTV as an optimization. In
> the meantime others will have been able to deploy new applications
> leveraging ANYPREVOUT (Eltoo, blind
> statechains, etc..[1]).
>
>
> Given the interest in, and demand for, both simple covenants and better
> offchain protocols it seems to me that
> BIP118 is a soft fork candidate that could benefit more (if not most of)
> Bitcoin users.
> Actually i'd also be interested in knowing if people would oppose the
> APO-AS part of BIP118, since it enables
> CTV's features, for the same reason they'd oppose BIP119.
>
>
> [0] That is, to not commit to the other inputs of the transaction (via
> `sha_sequences` and maybe also
> `sha_amounts`). Cf
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0118.mediawiki#signature-message
> .
>
> [1] https://anyprevout.xyz/ "Use Cases" section
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4431 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-04-25 16:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-22 11:11 [bitcoin-dev] ANYPREVOUT in place of CTV darosior
2022-04-22 11:44 ` rot13maxi
2022-04-22 11:54 ` darosior
2022-04-22 17:01 ` Luke Dashjr
2022-04-24 20:41 ` Richard Myers
2022-04-25 13:35 ` darosior
2022-04-25 16:35 ` darosior
2022-04-25 1:46 ` Erik Aronesty
2022-04-25 16:35 ` Nadav Ivgi
2022-04-25 16:57 ` Nadav Ivgi [this message]
2022-04-26 20:13 ` Jeremy Rubin
2022-04-29 5:08 ` Nadav Ivgi
2022-04-29 8:30 ` darosior
2022-04-29 10:21 ` Nadav Ivgi
2022-04-29 11:40 ` Nadav Ivgi
2022-05-01 23:35 ` Billy Tetrud
2022-04-30 8:09 ` Nadav Ivgi
2022-04-30 11:15 ` Greg Sanders
2022-05-01 14:25 ` Nadav Ivgi
2022-05-03 15:51 ` Jeremy Rubin
2022-04-22 13:35 pushd
2022-04-25 13:34 ` Hampus Sjöberg
2022-04-22 17:14 pushd
2022-04-29 13:22 Swambo, Jacob
2022-05-03 10:38 ` darosior
2022-05-03 16:40 Swambo, Jacob
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAGXD5f3VrYQTXHoWEoj6bFsXKZ6C_FHXm8_FNuJZUm_yKpKfcg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=nadav@shesek.info \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=darosior@protonmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox