From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A83BC002D for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2022 20:49:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32AD04019A for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2022 20:49:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.102 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.102 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, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yakshaver.org Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hjOrF5SlggwZ for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2022 20:49:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:07:07 by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-4321.protonmail.ch (mail-4321.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.21]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98F154018F for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2022 20:49:12 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2022 20:41:54 +0000 Authentication-Results: mail-4321.protonmail.ch; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yakshaver.org header.i=@yakshaver.org header.b="CX/OTAzX" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yakshaver.org; s=protonmail3; t=1650832922; bh=AjnoeADdx0KlGj0wNFr0DZC8C9JTGdES/cDDQnPkvZM=; h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID; b=CX/OTAzXy7kxyIN8C9zqiPOZEU2A1n6r1/Evz6VP4kTbh2JRnudSBTJ032laTh+v+ +KVOBqHH/jxqX0D/PPUW8f/AVcyDp08N0kd+8g8C3aTtSJeoAt+0vX8ofoieIwx3Zd eNUG+avxRC4YyKhWpM5kgCVtsE1QUKGYVE3gzir6uqiEiqy4YbaKeyxf9W+Vxh4UfJ lHhQUlNIyQkl/YemxAwCnUrgHNviaNnPl14fwfFAUsgBBw8Bm+Eac7p1IVt9/RsdvC 9F5GPZMWEMfKK41Co6HJVI7h0KnqIiZC0RturyAlCMVGrzO2B0ewOPjTAhorqyTK4q Q7bhdKrqNqNTQ== To: darosior , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion From: Richard Myers Reply-To: Richard Myers Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Feedback-ID: 32932370:user:proton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:05:52 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] ANYPREVOUT in place of 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: Sun, 24 Apr 2022 20:49:14 -0000 Hi darosior, Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. > I would like to know people's sentiment about doing (a very slightly twea= ked version of) BIP118 in place of > (or before doing) BIP119. Sounds good to me. Although from an activation perspective it may not be ei= ther/or, both proposals do compete for scarce reviewer time so their orderi= ng will necessarily be driven by reviewer's priorities. My priority is elto= o which is why I focus on BIP-118. > SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUTANYSCRIPT, if its "ANYONECANPAY" behaviour is made opti= onal [0], can emulate CTV just fine. For someone not as versed in CTV, why is it necessary that ANYONECANPAY be = optional to emulate CTV? Is there a write-up that explains how APO-AS w/out= ANYONECANPAY approximates CTV? In the case of eltoo commit txs, we use bring-your-own-fee (BYOF) to late-b= ind fees; that means ANYONECANPAY will always be paired with APO-AS for elt= oo. Settlement txs in eltoo use just APO and do not necessarily need to be = paired with ANYONECANPAY. I would guess making ANYONECANPAY the default for APO-AS was a way to squee= ze in one more sighash flag. Perhaps there's another way to do it? Including SIGHASH_GROUP with APO for eltoo is also tempting. Specifically s= o the counter-party who commits a settlement tx can use for fees their sett= led to_self balance. How to rejigger the sighash flags to accommodate both = APO and GROUP may be worth some discussion. The BIP-118 proposal will certainly benefit from having input from reviewer= s looking at other protocols than eltoo. -- Richard