From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C82C3C002D for ; Sat, 7 May 2022 22:40:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B073B60AF7 for ; Sat, 7 May 2022 22:40:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4kyJItvuhfDV for ; Sat, 7 May 2022 22:40:18 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-4027.protonmail.ch (mail-4027.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.27]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8153260759 for ; Sat, 7 May 2022 22:40:18 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 07 May 2022 22:40:10 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail2; t=1651963216; bh=4/1Uk0uHoAdPCtLm/kmZWvgCd6GvQXSbr/YVhfMcjdY=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To: References:Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To: Feedback-ID:Message-ID; b=hf3pZaNyBDaWxSEphAYk+Wl1CZYJl6kCuW9vnDTjXhEnol3vshnRpf16x81GweOSJ 5OD7PCpM66XAbXcNXd2Lk6ftUndpDgrL56OJ4ateuZyzb6cwRz511eJDC76DmuzLWd vZrWx4CdsY60socAvloo2d6/7HdCXpRMFMps8Df1kee+UXKGgIZggzno9RBX241S/I /wYEjScssxqsx4w5xriFYElVnQz0lzslLMRUMaHbcd1y3V56+yMHRzRQLTk/3SaDpD YDa9p5g1SdtzZQEnGeWrtbmI9LVwnYgzBa61Pa1jvwtmyImpUlcsBrU8kpupSZdPEB 6GoWpmp76XwHA== To: =?utf-8?Q?Jorge_Tim=C3=B3n?= , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion From: ZmnSCPxj Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Feedback-ID: 2872618:user:proton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV BIP Meeting #8 Notes 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: Sat, 07 May 2022 22:40:19 -0000 Good morning Jorge, > I think people may be scared of potential attacks based on covenants. For= example, visacoin. > But there was a thread with ideas of possible attacks based on covenants. > To me the most scary one is visacoin, specially seeing what happened in c= anada and other places lately and the general censorship in the west, the s= upposed war on "misinformation" going on (really a war against truth imo, b= ut whatever) it's getting really scary. But perhaps someone else can be mor= e scared about a covenant to add demurrage fees to coins or something, I do= n't know. > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D278122 This requires *recursive* covenants. At the time the post was made, no distinction was seen between recursive an= d non-recursive covenants, which is why the post points out that covenants = suck. The idea then was that anything powerful enough to provide covenants would = also be powerful enough to provide *recursive* covenants, so there was no d= istinction made between recursive and non-recursive covenants (the latter w= as thought to be impossible). However, `OP_CTV` turns out to enable sort-of covenants, but by constructio= n *cannot* provide recursion. It is just barely powerful enough to make a covenant, but not powerful enou= gh to make *recursive* covenants. That is why today we distinguish between recursive and non-recursive covena= nt opcodes, because we now have opcode designs that provides non-recursive = covenants (when previously it was thought all covenant opcodes would provid= e recursion). `visacoin` can only work as a recursive covenant, thus it is not possible t= o use `OP_CTV` to implement `visacoin`, regardless of your political views. (I was also misinformed in the past and ignored `OP_CTV` since I thought th= at, like all the other covenant opcodes, it would enable recursive covenant= s.) Regards, ZmnSCPxj