From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 393AEC002D for ; Fri, 13 May 2022 23:33:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 307BF40918 for ; Fri, 13 May 2022 23:33:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=blockstream-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D8eNccduN2_l for ; Fri, 13 May 2022 23:33:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-qk1-x72f.google.com (mail-qk1-x72f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72f]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BDD840906 for ; Fri, 13 May 2022 23:33:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk1-x72f.google.com with SMTP id c1so8487712qkf.13 for ; Fri, 13 May 2022 16:33:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=blockstream-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=4Q9paseE2ppqbBAqM6E1o0bzCL3Blxn8Z9kkHJyk9gE=; b=ZxIXhvy+VxuAGd1JFXxN/H2pOvz5lX9CFz30W9x2K3a3OyCODE59qpTbZOJXiwH1jL Gx/T8p5zgQgVzqG+6GQ76GfjI+dfHG+gAJqf5Tkt66JMS0RCd4JMkg6REP0MxeQHNg6m jk4ak24rtvhg8YrDMFflwau95elsrxuikMZdw25lnPWjchPXZDlRcsJcJOy5Fd6bBYYF Enns/rWROr5TpeQHCSLzh4X8uEapZcuikW7uc2aSxVvZwOKcYkwbs61A6HO8b/WMFSP6 +F6LuRo4Cgzd3RoeHWJ+Tm3SC2OSDUXRNFDDUs7mD0K1Ui6bcQXt/Eo8EZUqTVbSw5Nu Bakg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=4Q9paseE2ppqbBAqM6E1o0bzCL3Blxn8Z9kkHJyk9gE=; b=zV/ezUf04OExnQaV20g5ivnzkmqGhFpuJhUpGptNJJH3tamfhD+/3IpRO8yAtrNpYZ qCL3Uail+FrOjG21uvpnmX1W7A7o7eAUwzVRjjUWgT/Tpqzo+R4cGTMfscINbfPLw6kk ek0WyJV7FiY6PR48JFScQiUVDuFrt8RrjUUw3pPermgpiqBTjqWE1+HhS6z36vax+bRY T/a5t5Nkpb6APHWDob+r4j6Paxq8mzSzLAtsnEeYlwmCz+T1DPD/CD1rb9felaWTLMo/ rC2yOo6wdv+Jw8A6/Lne3djd27VFGLAe8WWGMzrYTKQseP8tIs+9/nJd9fnvVp0iRZxj 5LEg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531u1OQR5kHe6SxMTmyoBJ7Twmgwak5bTTevzTjqmb+7eh/HW6BQ J+3zMvK5+pijKTa1X4ujA/jY7WDJ2asPSThxbpMVdu44wLw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxckddNYAlbOP3WkCaLREe4f5+MZrKrrfer5ZVXEo9pFvbgkBp+mzqXxpjHGOvFdb6yMWgpfR1lzqUeg1vQ1/U= X-Received: by 2002:a37:a9c3:0:b0:69f:b11d:a216 with SMTP id s186-20020a37a9c3000000b0069fb11da216mr5508663qke.602.1652484827142; Fri, 13 May 2022 16:33:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <161946014-482cdec305e2bd7a2c3fc4774c70239d@pmq1v.m5r2.onet> <20220513214347.GA2463@erisian.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20220513214347.GA2463@erisian.com.au> From: "Russell O'Connor" Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 19:33:36 -0400 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001e6e7f05deed1b7d" Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Speedy covenants (OP_CAT2) 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, 13 May 2022 23:33:50 -0000 --0000000000001e6e7f05deed1b7d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 5:43 PM Anthony Towns wrote: > For any specific opcode proposal, I think you still want to consider > > 1) how much you can do with it > 2) how efficient it is to validate (and thus how cheap it is to use) > 3) how easy it is to make it do what you want > 4) how helpful it is at preventing bugs > 5) how clean and maintainable the validation code is > > I guess to me CTV and APO are weakest at (1); CAT/CSFS falls down on > (3) and (4); OP_TX is probably weakest at (5) and maybe not as good as > we'd like at (3) and (4)? > FWIW, I think the rmain reasons to do CAT+CSFS is to validate oracle messages and pubkey delegation. The ability to covenants would be secondary and would mostly serve to get us some real user data about what sort of covenants users find especially valuable. --0000000000001e6e7f05deed1b7d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 5:43 PM Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au> wrote:
For any specific opcode proposal, I thi= nk you still want to consider

=C2=A01) how much you can do with it
=C2=A02) how efficient it is to validate (and thus how cheap it is to use)<= br> =C2=A03) how easy it is to make it do what you want
=C2=A04) how helpful it is at preventing bugs
=C2=A05) how clean and maintainable the validation code is

I guess to me CTV and APO are weakest at (1); CAT/CSFS falls down on
(3) and (4); OP_TX is probably weakest at (5) and maybe not as good as
we'd like at (3) and (4)?

FWIW, I t= hink the rmain reasons to do CAT+CSFS is to validate oracle messages and pu= bkey delegation.=C2=A0 The ability to covenants would be secondary and woul= d mostly serve to get us some real user data about what sort of covenants u= sers find especially valuable.
--0000000000001e6e7f05deed1b7d--