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 A62E0C0037 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 04:50:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73EBF81E69 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 04:50:02 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 73EBF81E69 Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=fm3 header.b=s/5Wn9ZK X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 rSdFfDC1aK3r for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 04:50:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fhigh1-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh1-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.152]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0F6D81DAB for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 04:50:01 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org A0F6D81DAB Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailfhigh.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C388E1140094; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 23:50:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 29 Jan 2024 23:50:00 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm3; t=1706590200; x=1706676600; bh=Xrj9wpor0dJA0j1xn3q9djKBFOcY J4n/y9xVJEG47X4=; b=s/5Wn9ZKM9y/oXCVz5724OxlbYIi0knFa43m9itHmnGK N3qbkqh/eF9rM56teQoZ1lgYA+KuumtP8gPptrUjjgOrne+o2WWzROmZz0coLhVF SZD6ez3qdjRTcbZREtepvI0Ik7Gov/03pRYs8+WnJB+6WQCW49QXJXPoss7AM1g3 QnyinyhCJDMbv/CLGHr/tur4U2rcbmRnNXTHHR9jQqGwqUrEOGZjNvLiopkBWunb MNDAg12bARzXLUiLxw3631J6JIonmbR1b68Icu5TZGkbCPO1bwnJwse08vQKv6/w DBJfKHKhVSTb2Lp/LxAkvqKextnifDmTLfqtN2I8hA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvkedrfedthedgjeehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpeffhffvvefukfhfgggtuggjsehgtd erredttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefrvghtvghrucfvohguugcuoehpvghtvgesphgvthgvrhht ohguugdrohhrgheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepledvleelffdtudekudffjefgfeejue ehieelfedtgfetudetgeegveeutefhjedtnecuffhomhgrihhnpehpvghtvghrthhouggu rdhorhhgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomh epphgvthgvsehpvghtvghrthhouggurdhorhhg X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i525146e8:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 23:50:00 -0500 (EST) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DB5335F849; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 04:49:57 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 04:49:57 +0000 From: Peter Todd To: jlspc Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="DiLx0MJHNF0DyRU8" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] CheckTemplateVerify Does Not Scale Due to UTXO's Required For Fee Payment 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, 30 Jan 2024 04:50:02 -0000 --DiLx0MJHNF0DyRU8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 05:49:26PM +0000, jlspc wrote: > Hi Peter, >=20 > If feerate-dependent timelocks (FDTs) (1) are supported, it would be poss= ible to use CTV to define a transaction with a fixed fee and no anchor outp= uts, as long as it's racing against a transaction with an FDT. Fee-rate-dependant timelocks have obvious issues around manipulation of observed fee-rates by miners. It not unreasonable to say they assume miners= are honest, which is a significant weakening of the economic incentive-based security model we usually assume in Bitcoin. --=20 https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org --DiLx0MJHNF0DyRU8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEE0RcYcKRzsEwFZ3N5Lly11TVRLzcFAmW4f/QACgkQLly11TVR Lzcw9Q/9F/2on+ybkBNtuY9297goSrHa17kC+VZ79oMnN22GZw8dcekek7HhOW0U kKvKPF/43ywFkT5DHwC750aAD5RssOw/EhsALXsppisiiv0xP9t3r3a8luyCcJfb 32z+CyUrIBlZ+1ZkoDAsMj4itL6V8/1tqe0lJ+0/iEpwG+NEUWa6KLqNwjtAPgpf hVGk3z02AM75G/sEW5GH63sUv9/MTbcp4kXVqEW6ZElykVTXktuou7TRmHP29Sn8 EtLw3GPOWqFymEE5YsfF08faBqwCXtPJ0LYTNgfyugoEbmmYddtOPqBLN3rJLQLq BGu+PgklHpugGGCyvDT8Z6iGsjwZQ2EHSxDckpQYUrNs/SdQI2UBIhMpeHfKKZkO OXQsqHeQ9wPWc6PXrAg7LC/KSKBSm0izgPrTeMI9Xq5A6SOrRbCh15xU2xw7z0WD 33oNkHRq3tAHIE1v/eadEGWF3OOma6AUi0KMmN7vA3GKpIz2JUPUilAbVw6NPm3h HIWud78naj8pNBfuEcwNAr+/XLGDXj5+6w9vi3BgVRGQR4e2ixbAN9qhbgHR3yky h685/j5s4NuQWXy60Ro/ihsVBpA5eWADgoOIhd+pWiWaaJLqNObwKEUxpFPdanK6 sIv0NA7nvIGtzV1kNEToPVGeuqXb81GwkZGDS6hXBv+dGiiVDGA= =HfBf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --DiLx0MJHNF0DyRU8--