📅 Original date posted:2022-04-22
📝 Original message:There's no reason for before/after/in place. We have version bits specifically
so we can have multiple deployments in parallel.
But none of this ST nonsense, please. That alone is a reason to oppose it.
Luke
On Friday 22 April 2022 11:11:41 darosior via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I would like to know people's sentiment about doing (a very slightly
> tweaked version of) BIP118 in place of (or before doing) BIP119.
>
> SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT and its precedent iterations have been discussed for
> over 6 years. It presents proven and implemented usecases, that are
> demanded and (please someone correct me if i'm wrong) more widely accepted
> than CTV's.
>
> SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUTANYSCRIPT, if its "ANYONECANPAY" behaviour is made
> optional [0], can emulate CTV just fine. Sure then you can't have bare or
> Segwit v0 CTV, and it's a bit more expensive to use. But we can consider
> CTV an optimization of APO-AS covenants.
>
> CTV advocates have been presenting vaults as the flagship usecase. Although
> as someone who've been trying to implement practical vaults for the past 2
> years i doubt CTV is necessary nor sufficient for this (but still useful!),
> using APO-AS covers it. And it's not a couple dozen more virtual bytes that
> are going to matter for a potential vault user.
>
> If after some time all of us who are currently dubious about CTV's stated
> usecases are proven wrong by onchain usage of a less efficient construction
> to achieve the same goal, we could roll-out CTV as an optimization. In the
> meantime others will have been able to deploy new applications leveraging
> ANYPREVOUT (Eltoo, blind statechains, etc..[1]).
>
>
> Given the interest in, and demand for, both simple covenants and better
> offchain protocols it seems to me that BIP118 is a soft fork candidate that
> could benefit more (if not most of) Bitcoin users. Actually i'd also be
> interested in knowing if people would oppose the APO-AS part of BIP118,
> since it enables CTV's features, for the same reason they'd oppose BIP119.
>
>
> [0] That is, to not commit to the other inputs of the transaction (via
> `sha_sequences` and maybe also `sha_amounts`). Cf
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0118.mediawiki#signature-me
>ssage.
>
> [1] https://anyprevout.xyz/ "Use Cases" section
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tf…rfq0n
2023-06-07 23:07:59
in reply to nevent1q…hw2e
Author Public Key
npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0nPublished at
2023-06-07 23:07:59Event JSON
{
"id": "725601bc655b00f577a285b4e0e2a6c4c5b4d417e6c4fb40ad9844c5d3eb32c1",
"pubkey": "5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803",
"created_at": 1686179279,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"744ae2e156228361733cf74acfff3433f11541ee820fe9185cc72f3c98beb11b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"583f4bec605f8763049992c0c20e467247c5f9e53a6d24aa42a601fad412b8c1",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"7f05c6d469aea3aebb69433a3de1336e36d9b0e34b54488cca80118b30a2e0ea"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-04-22\n📝 Original message:There's no reason for before/after/in place. We have version bits specifically \nso we can have multiple deployments in parallel.\n\nBut none of this ST nonsense, please. That alone is a reason to oppose it.\n\nLuke\n\n\nOn Friday 22 April 2022 11:11:41 darosior via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e I would like to know people's sentiment about doing (a very slightly\n\u003e tweaked version of) BIP118 in place of (or before doing) BIP119.\n\u003e\n\u003e SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT and its precedent iterations have been discussed for\n\u003e over 6 years. It presents proven and implemented usecases, that are\n\u003e demanded and (please someone correct me if i'm wrong) more widely accepted\n\u003e than CTV's.\n\u003e\n\u003e SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUTANYSCRIPT, if its \"ANYONECANPAY\" behaviour is made\n\u003e optional [0], can emulate CTV just fine. Sure then you can't have bare or\n\u003e Segwit v0 CTV, and it's a bit more expensive to use. But we can consider\n\u003e CTV an optimization of APO-AS covenants.\n\u003e\n\u003e CTV advocates have been presenting vaults as the flagship usecase. Although\n\u003e as someone who've been trying to implement practical vaults for the past 2\n\u003e years i doubt CTV is necessary nor sufficient for this (but still useful!),\n\u003e using APO-AS covers it. And it's not a couple dozen more virtual bytes that\n\u003e are going to matter for a potential vault user.\n\u003e\n\u003e If after some time all of us who are currently dubious about CTV's stated\n\u003e usecases are proven wrong by onchain usage of a less efficient construction\n\u003e to achieve the same goal, we could roll-out CTV as an optimization. In the\n\u003e meantime others will have been able to deploy new applications leveraging\n\u003e ANYPREVOUT (Eltoo, blind statechains, etc..[1]).\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Given the interest in, and demand for, both simple covenants and better\n\u003e offchain protocols it seems to me that BIP118 is a soft fork candidate that\n\u003e could benefit more (if not most of) Bitcoin users. Actually i'd also be\n\u003e interested in knowing if people would oppose the APO-AS part of BIP118,\n\u003e since it enables CTV's features, for the same reason they'd oppose BIP119.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e [0] That is, to not commit to the other inputs of the transaction (via\n\u003e `sha_sequences` and maybe also `sha_amounts`). Cf\n\u003e https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0118.mediawiki#signature-me\n\u003essage.\n\u003e\n\u003e [1] https://anyprevout.xyz/ \"Use Cases\" section\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev",
"sig": "a3b09af7ef4a8b9140376f36126ac2fdaf0ad2821cb252272946bbfbf2438a24d7055bfd8a2c5b678655a8d1cc4a212cf0171b95c292d0dc4dcfdd04c146cab0"
}