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 4AD87C0011 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 02:20:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3216082F6F for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 02:20:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.602 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com 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 iq6dxqNkpurx for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 02:20:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-40132.protonmail.ch (mail-40132.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.132]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67F7F82F6C for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 02:20:39 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 02:20:30 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1645669236; bh=gwQ8Mc3VzW2hcd5L4U5EC43CwJpGvgZqWlXXv94MBbg=; h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID:Message-ID; b=Rt94mzLn0mHgVOsUiGgLC6mnJC/1GNwMXD0DrbqfcBKWJH8ZfQ/8J/eTFvEQ8RIVc rsK5NoCN5FDm+2l/P3aY3K3C+p+gPFDMffhdqnI7oKqVGTqI6FV9TCSBqUkG+qqXQZ A8xMMtXN0KOuvJ8rgTSNF3nmQHbpU4Pbkl0bcGyZeCM1QDdxCxa9YewlHqaAw+F1tG ZxmsxavYvqSoGo7QJZN45jahmxbH3yvpgB5tyOMOnvx8+tYDSn8OrTAN4oYNXwX8Wb Xng02PTWlzWcr5y5jPbMOvPe+jL08tpAnx97ZjrEWiFD9ED/jv1bRHwUX35yaOWJ/O kL9AjwyI94ShA== To: Paul Sztorc , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion From: ZmnSCPxj Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <87leymuiu8.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <0100017ee6472e02-037d355d-4c16-43b0-81d2-4a82b580ba99-000000@email.amazonses.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Recursive covenant opposition, or the absence thereof, was Re: TXHASH + CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY in lieu of CTV and ANYPREVOUT 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: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 02:20:40 -0000 Good morning Paul, welcome back, and the list, For the most part I am reluctant to add Turing-completeness due to the Prin= ciple of Least Power. We saw this play out on the web browser technology. A full Turing-complete language was included fairly early in a popular HTML= implementation, which everyone else then copied. In the beginning, it had very loose boundaries, and protections against thi= ngs like cross-site scripting did not exist. Eventually, W3C cracked down and modern JavaScript is now a lot more sandbo= xed than at the beginning --- restricting its power. In addition, for things like "change the color of this bit when the mouse h= overs it", which used to be implemented in JavaScript, were moved to CSS, a= non-Turing-complete language. The Principle of Least Power is that we should strive to use the language w= ith *only what we need*, and naught else. So I think for the most part that Turing-completeness is dangerous. There may be things, other than Drivechain, that you might object to enabli= ng in Bitcoin, and if those things can be implemented in a Turing-complete = language, then they are likely implementable in recursive covenants. That the web *started* with a powerful language that was later restricted i= s fine for the web. After all, the main use of the web is showing videos of attractive female h= umans, and cute cats. (WARNING: WHEN I TAKE OVER THE WORLD, I WILL TILE IT WITH CUTE CAT PICTURES= .) (Note: I am not an AI that seeks to take over the world.) But Bitcoin protects money, which I think is more important, as it can be t= raded not only for videos of attractive female humans, and cute cats, but o= ther, lesser things as well. So I believe some reticence towards recursive covenants, and other things i= t may enable, is warranted, Principle of Least Power exists, though admittedly, this principle was deve= loped for the web. The web is a server-client protocol, but Bitcoin is peer-to-peer, so it see= ms certainly possible that Principle of Least Power does not apply to Bitco= in. As I understand it, however, the Principle of Least Power exists *precisely= * because increased power often lets third parties do more than what was ex= pected, including things that might damage the interests of the people who = allowed the increased power to exist, or things that might damage the inter= ests of *everyone*. One can point out as well, that despite the problems that JavaScript introd= uced, it also introduced GMail and the now-rich Web ecosystem. Perhaps one might liken recursive covenants to the box that was opened by P= andora. Once opened, what is released cannot be put back. Yet perhaps at the bottom of this box, is Hope? Also: Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both no and yes. Regards, ZmnSCPxj