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 4C494C002D for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:35:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35DF5402DC for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:35:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.101 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 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, 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=protonmail.com 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 ZfoiN2PSl1_n for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:35:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-4325.protonmail.ch (mail-4325.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.25]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 833D6401ED for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:35:23 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:35:14 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail2; t=1650904521; bh=nIfl1Rp2h3VRxv0kKMcFHX8RmKc5MZIqTfnuGGtqSvw=; 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=jQEdSu4d6ar7RgBgjxC74WxRLLmJqmkfBJ/VwhIp8i0yKwjX5SU4mbG/k0xGXyVG1 g4mAt4Np4FrxlerbQ01erOtU0jh4rnj9oRu7ICX/NcqKZlxdPuEDy/yo9u26BBPbeE HJc4TJz23MTlhdAtFNQgVQPU+mp2pFWv1MAnO6cSntj9bk9X1QgxJ5cIxreA6z6OJO u2JfUG0gbiKvpkJ649DgQABsku6uzV2bVoPnP7PWzBPZA1m/k+UqrIjt188HOFeRlD +uvaaaW9pe76iKoJWGMfaKgruRYJL84ca1NgbiYBQaxe6iSTvoopWADRh5CKnwlICi g/JJyDiEiVEIQ== To: darosior , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion From: darosior Reply-To: darosior Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Feedback-ID: 7060259:user:proton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:51:20 +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: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:35:25 -0000 Just a correction to my previous mail. Sorry for the non-attribution, i did= n't recall APO covenants had been discussed in the context of CTV. > > a write-up that explains how APO-AS w/out ANYONECANPAY approximates CTV= ? > > I'm not aware of any specific to CTV. It's just that the fields covered i= n the CTV hash are very close to what The comparison was already done by Anthony Towns. https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2019-June/017036.ht= ml Jeremy Rubin already pointed out that it missed committing to the nSequence= s hash and number of inputs (and optionally scriptSigs). https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2019-June/017038.ht= ml ------- Original Message ------- Le lundi 25 avril 2022 =C3=A0 3:35 PM, darosior via bitcoin-dev a =C3=A9crit : > Hi Richard, > > > Sounds good to me. Although from an activation perspective it may not b= e either/or, both proposals do > > compete for scarce reviewer time > > Yes, of course. Let's say i was more interested in knowing if people who = oppose CTV would oppose > SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT too. I think talking about activation of anything at t= his point is premature. > > > 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? > > I'm not aware of any specific to CTV. It's just that the fields covered i= n the CTV hash are very close to what > ANYPREVOUT_ANYSCRIPT's signature hash covers [0]. The two things that CTV= commits to that APO_AS does not are > the number of inputs and the hash of the inputs' sequences [1]. > Not committing to the number of inputs and other inputs' data is today's = behaviour of ANYONECANPAY that can > be combined with other signature hash types [1]. Thus APO_AS makes ACP ma= ndatory, and to emulate CTV > completely it should be optional. > > > Antoine > > [0] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0119.mediawiki#Detail= ed_Specification > [1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0118.mediawiki#signat= ure-message > [2] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/10a626a1d6776447525f50d3e1a97= b3c5bbad7d6/src/script/interpreter.cpp#L1327, https://github.com/bitcoin/bi= tcoin/blob/10a626a1d6776447525f50d3e1a97b3c5bbad7d6/src/script/interpreter.= cpp#L1517-L1522 > > > ------- Original Message ------- > Le dimanche 24 avril 2022 =C3=A0 10:41 PM, Richard Myers remyers@yakshave= r.org a =C3=A9crit : > > > > > Hi darosior, > > > > Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. > > > > > I would like to know people's sentiment about doing (a very slightly = tweaked version of) BIP118 in place of > > > (or before doing) BIP119. > > > > Sounds good to me. Although from an activation perspective it may not b= e either/or, both proposals do compete for scarce reviewer time so their or= dering will necessarily be driven by reviewer's priorities. My priority is = eltoo which is why I focus on BIP-118. > > > > > SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUTANYSCRIPT, if its "ANYONECANPAY" behaviour is made = optional [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 la= te-bind fees; that means ANYONECANPAY will always be paired with APO-AS for= eltoo. 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 s= queeze in one more sighash flag. Perhaps there's another way to do it? > > > > Including SIGHASH_GROUP with APO for eltoo is also tempting. Specifical= ly so the counter-party who commits a settlement tx can use for fees their = settled to_self balance. How to rejigger the sighash flags to accommodate b= oth APO and GROUP may be worth some discussion. > > > > The BIP-118 proposal will certainly benefit from having input from revi= ewers looking at other protocols than eltoo. > > > > -- Richard > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev