From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31229C0037 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2024 14:32:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09822817A4 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2024 14:32:44 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 09822817A4 Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.i=@gmail-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20230601 header.b=ne/ca34+ X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K7g20BUJaiYn for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2024 14:32:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yb1-xb29.google.com (mail-yb1-xb29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b29]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4F2D8179B for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2024 14:32:42 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org A4F2D8179B Received: by mail-yb1-xb29.google.com with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-dbdb6ea67a4so837376276.0 for ; Tue, 02 Jan 2024 06:32:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1704205961; x=1704810761; darn=lists.linuxfoundation.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=1l+umYUdFUrTjqqLfitakiUNT/5k4VpATSdvLBAEDws=; b=ne/ca34+d29Z/GgsK7IcaftAMZ17kaMKP029Z9jwf1Jdm8biVSGC6fG4mGVAaxQsfG C/V5ETewwRjUmXjGr+iNDvTfPRqw2ze4cQpoKrWiotJVD5Smbot8lobK5b0q5Bc7oqvg 7I1AzgM6nnce7fVLXjyGSjlSSfQaWMq2aTKWNgQ8Et5j/u46a/SNaR01J7tfQlJZpIHx 5JlGREeB9ahlHTWU9Ao65LGjt0hmlfmQ++ahSJXjOT8a/YRvNxbhR1H/1f933i1hnLhx dEXsvfl+IkW0nme3HyEQ+ZLu4B+otxQx5RvTM3orEOfgKJekxuQhb+JtYSWWkj57Bw5g jgDA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1704205961; x=1704810761; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=1l+umYUdFUrTjqqLfitakiUNT/5k4VpATSdvLBAEDws=; b=qnewFoMOfIQPoKNDA6coZ6OMar6/+9XKCs6kSvXeDNuZtFYTMCQTNBn6xqUcMBNxnd uzglIPkJ4X21GYzFILpnkOZSJMtq/w5wmPH28QnylUr4D1mq1Gc3m1RdTxIstx+HRRUx 5BiuP/wRCEkh2qpoDRgjUdMZP19N48+sx6e9JgBtDo1BR474wPA4iLdqu+i5OJTwBXsO kbPRWwHfaookm2h3omeQ2ElSjqe2TqHqUvJWv2YK0aUKAsE+0FZlVFCEf/6yP+8hJtnQ h/a3v5I/u6+6E0wkIzv+HR5Y36tBbyqYGFVN6LbG/QCv6HqkPTYwtdzzfRuzJNuwdJ3n zyEA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyHNTkK15SWwSk5dW1lmGGTpgMzSuhS38l0JKZxw5hRVUTRocVd 3atIARMEGmM6HgSeX57lwTGQG/HTfbu9ccFkZmP+/Ms= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH6S8m8W9htq3ceCHvgoMmDO30/saSuHt5nIAINhCiSzk3RN+Tkv6Xwmj53LrG5vLiPnpbIXUKfLOSrmW5YWCY= X-Received: by 2002:a25:df07:0:b0:dbd:5ad0:8a34 with SMTP id w7-20020a25df07000000b00dbd5ad08a34mr16018270ybg.5.1704205961314; Tue, 02 Jan 2024 06:32:41 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <39ecOLU7GJPGc0zWZmGuaj-a4ANySfoRjwxoUoxP480kfRRc_fsPl9MvZDC-0vSfrO3jYraHVUyxWpcg7AFHRJkEJUERYdHZlzimOwql1j0=@protonmail.com> <2e113332-2cfd-73ec-0368-136728ceb31a@dashjr.org> In-Reply-To: From: Erik Aronesty Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2024 09:32:29 -0500 Message-ID: To: Michael Folkson Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f2c495060df75e89" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 02 Jan 2024 15:49:46 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Anthony Towns Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Swift Activation - 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: Tue, 02 Jan 2024 14:32:44 -0000 --000000000000f2c495060df75e89 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, Jan 2, 2024, 8:52 AM Michael Folkson wrote: > In the interests of time I'll just pick two to respond to but I don't > agree with any of your points. > > > Covenants allow trustless utxos sharing and also are needed for > vaulting. The numerous use cases are documented, built out and on signet to > my knowledge. Check out utxos.org for a good list > > Your knowledge is incorrect. As far as I know in the getting on for 2 > years since the first CTV activation talk/attempt literally no one has > built out a CTV use case and demonstrated it on signet with the possible > exception of James O'Beirne's OP_VAULT which requires other new opcodes in > addition to CTV. > Nice example, thanks. > > > 4. "Best tool for the job" is not the bar. "Safe for all" and "useful > for some" is the bar. > This is the bar, ant CTV has passed it with vaulting alone. If you want to avoid a chain split with an activation attempt (it is > possible you don't care but if you do) you have to address concerns others > have with a particular proposal. > You haven't mentioned one safety concern. It's hard to tell if you have any. There is, of course, the elephant in the room with CTV that is a true concern that nobody talks about. The real danger of CTV isn't whether it's the best, and we know it's nonrecursive. And we can use BIP8, so that isn't an issue either. And we already have shitcoins on BTC, so sapio shouldn't be your issue ( https://github.com/sapio-lang/sapio) Why exactly is your problem? You yourself have admitted it's useful for vaulting, and for reducing the cost of lightning onboarding, even though you ignored the dozens of other use cases enumerated in detail on utxos.org and elsewhere. --000000000000f2c495060df75e89 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Tue, Jan 2, 2024, 8:52 AM Michael Folkson <michaelfolkson@protonmail.com> wrote:


Your knowledge is incorrect. As far as I know i= n the getting on for 2 years since the first CTV activation talk/attempt li= terally no one has built out a CTV use case and demonstrated it on signet w= ith the possible exception of James O'Beirne's OP_VAULT which requi= res other new opcodes in addition to CTV.

Nice example, thanks.

>=C2=A04. "Best tool= for the job" is not the bar. "Safe for all" and "usefu= l for some" is the bar.

This is the bar, ant CTV has passed i= t with vaulting alone.

<= div class=3D"gmail_quote">
If you want to avoid a chain split with an activation attempt= (it is possible you don't care but if you do) you have to address conc= erns others have with a particular proposal.
=

You haven't mention= ed one safety concern.=C2=A0 It's hard to tell if you have any.=C2=A0 T= here is, of course, the elephant in the room with CTV that is a true concer= n that nobody talks about.=C2=A0=C2=A0

The real danger of CTV isn't whether it's the best, = and we know it's nonrecursive.=C2=A0 And we can use BIP8, so that isn&#= 39;t an issue either.

An= d we already have shitcoins on BTC, so sapio shouldn't be your issue (<= a href=3D"https://github.com/sapio-lang/sapio">https://github.com/sapio-lan= g/sapio)

Why exactly= is your problem?=C2=A0 You yourself have admitted it's useful for vaul= ting, and for reducing the cost of lightning onboarding, even though you ig= nored the dozens of other use cases enumerated in detail on utxos.org and elsewhere.



=







=
--000000000000f2c495060df75e89--