📅 Original date posted:2022-04-25
📝 Original message:Hi pushd.
Would you mind clarifying what you mean by BIP118 being a premature idea?
SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT, or SIGHASH_NOINPUT, as it was called back then, was
first proposed in the original Lightning Network whitepaper back in 2015.
It has been discussed on and off for many years now. I would not call it a
premature idea.
Now, the revised "Taprooted" version called ANYPREVOUT is a couple of years
old, so going with the NOINPUT version could be a safer bet (though that's
a bit ridiculous in my opinion).
Regarding that you do not find use-cases interesting. That's all fine I
suppose, but in the Lightning Network scene, I think it's fair to say that
there's widespread enthusiasm in getting a working eltoo solution, which
necessitates something like NOINPUT/ANYPREVOUT.
And even if eltoo wouldn't happen, enabling spacechains, covenants and
blind statechains seem like sufficient use-cases to me.
Cheers
Hampus
On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 9:32 PM pushd via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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.
>
>
> NACK for the below reasons:
>
> - Premature idea
> - I do not find use cases interesting
> - We are still in research phase of implementing covenants in bitcoin and
> looking for the best proposal
> - Taproot soft fork was recently activated and its too soon
> - Not enough documentation available
> - Could not find any pull request in core for BIP 118 that can be reviewed
> - Not enough tools available for testing
>
>
> pushd
> ---
>
> parallel lines meet at infinity?
>
> ------- Original Message -------
> On Friday, April 22nd, 2022 at 5:30 PM,
> bitcoin-dev-request at lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
>
> Send bitcoin-dev mailing list submissions to
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> bitcoin-dev-request at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> bitcoin-dev-owner at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of bitcoin-dev digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. ANYPREVOUT in place of CTV (darosior)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 11:11:41 +0000
> From: darosior darosior at protonmail.com
>
> To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>
> Subject: [bitcoin-dev] ANYPREVOUT in place of CTV
> Message-ID:
>
> p3P0m2_aNXd-4oYhFjCKJyI8zQXahmZed6bv7lnj9M9HbP9gMqMtJr-pP7XRAPs-rn_fJuGu1cv9ero5i8f0cvyZrMXYPzPx17CxJ2ZSvRk=@protonmail.com
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> 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-message
> .
>
> [1] https://anyprevout.xyz/ "Use Cases" section
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 83, Issue 40
> *******************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220425/ee7678ee/attachment.html>;
Hampus Sjöberg [ARCHIVE] /
npub10u…hln8t
2023-06-07 23:07:58
in reply to nevent1q…yx9p
Author Public Key
npub10uzud4rf4636awmfgvarmcfndcmdnv8rfd2y3rx2sqgckv9zur4qahln8tPublished at
2023-06-07 23:07:58Event JSON
{
"id": "583f4bec605f8763049992c0c20e467247c5f9e53a6d24aa42a601fad412b8c1",
"pubkey": "7f05c6d469aea3aebb69433a3de1336e36d9b0e34b54488cca80118b30a2e0ea",
"created_at": 1686179278,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"744ae2e156228361733cf74acfff3433f11541ee820fe9185cc72f3c98beb11b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"f788ba312ae838c8eb9912b08f0e053acc123de41e1b3c66bdc82750a0e88aee",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"7866e39300a17990d3d88285e5fe24e019b0dfdd93c220c6d02f67095af5f70e"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-04-25\n📝 Original message:Hi pushd.\nWould you mind clarifying what you mean by BIP118 being a premature idea?\nSIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT, or SIGHASH_NOINPUT, as it was called back then, was\nfirst proposed in the original Lightning Network whitepaper back in 2015.\nIt has been discussed on and off for many years now. I would not call it a\npremature idea.\n\nNow, the revised \"Taprooted\" version called ANYPREVOUT is a couple of years\nold, so going with the NOINPUT version could be a safer bet (though that's\na bit ridiculous in my opinion).\n\nRegarding that you do not find use-cases interesting. That's all fine I\nsuppose, but in the Lightning Network scene, I think it's fair to say that\nthere's widespread enthusiasm in getting a working eltoo solution, which\nnecessitates something like NOINPUT/ANYPREVOUT.\nAnd even if eltoo wouldn't happen, enabling spacechains, covenants and\nblind statechains seem like sufficient use-cases to me.\n\nCheers\nHampus\n\nOn Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 9:32 PM pushd via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\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\n\u003e NACK for the below reasons:\n\u003e\n\u003e - Premature idea\n\u003e - I do not find use cases interesting\n\u003e - We are still in research phase of implementing covenants in bitcoin and\n\u003e looking for the best proposal\n\u003e - Taproot soft fork was recently activated and its too soon\n\u003e - Not enough documentation available\n\u003e - Could not find any pull request in core for BIP 118 that can be reviewed\n\u003e - Not enough tools available for testing\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e pushd\n\u003e ---\n\u003e\n\u003e parallel lines meet at infinity?\n\u003e\n\u003e ------- Original Message -------\n\u003e On Friday, April 22nd, 2022 at 5:30 PM,\n\u003e bitcoin-dev-request at lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e Send bitcoin-dev mailing list submissions to\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\n\u003e To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to\n\u003e bitcoin-dev-request at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\n\u003e You can reach the person managing the list at\n\u003e bitcoin-dev-owner at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\n\u003e When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific\n\u003e than \"Re: Contents of bitcoin-dev digest...\"\n\u003e\n\u003e Today's Topics:\n\u003e\n\u003e 1. ANYPREVOUT in place of CTV (darosior)\n\u003e\n\u003e ----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e\n\u003e Message: 1\n\u003e Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 11:11:41 +0000\n\u003e From: darosior darosior at protonmail.com\n\u003e\n\u003e To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\n\u003e Subject: [bitcoin-dev] ANYPREVOUT in place of CTV\n\u003e Message-ID:\n\u003e\n\u003e p3P0m2_aNXd-4oYhFjCKJyI8zQXahmZed6bv7lnj9M9HbP9gMqMtJr-pP7XRAPs-rn_fJuGu1cv9ero5i8f0cvyZrMXYPzPx17CxJ2ZSvRk=@protonmail.com\n\u003e\n\u003e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8\n\u003e\n\u003e I would like to know people's sentiment about doing (a very slightly\n\u003e tweaked version of) BIP118 in place of\n\u003e (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\n\u003e implemented usecases, that are demanded and (please someone correct me if\n\u003e i'm wrong) more widely accepted than\n\u003e CTV's.\n\u003e\n\u003e SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUTANYSCRIPT, if its \"ANYONECANPAY\" behaviour is made\n\u003e optional [0], can emulate CTV just fine.\n\u003e Sure then you can't have bare or Segwit v0 CTV, and it's a bit more\n\u003e expensive to use. But we can consider CTV\n\u003e an optimization of APO-AS covenants.\n\u003e\n\u003e CTV advocates have been presenting vaults as the flagship usecase.\n\u003e Although as someone who've been trying to\n\u003e implement practical vaults for the past 2 years i doubt CTV is necessary\n\u003e nor sufficient for this (but still\n\u003e useful!), using APO-AS covers it. And it's not a couple dozen more virtual\n\u003e bytes that are going to matter for\n\u003e 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\n\u003e usage of a less efficient construction to achieve the same goal, we could\n\u003e roll-out CTV as an optimization. In\n\u003e the meantime others will have been able to deploy new applications\n\u003e leveraging ANYPREVOUT (Eltoo, blind\n\u003e statechains, etc..[1]).\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\n\u003e BIP118 is a soft fork candidate that could benefit more (if not most of)\n\u003e Bitcoin users.\n\u003e Actually i'd also be interested in knowing if people would oppose the\n\u003e APO-AS part of BIP118, since it enables\n\u003e CTV's features, for the same reason they'd oppose BIP119.\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\n\u003e sha_amounts). Cf\n\u003e https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0118.mediawiki#signature-message\n\u003e .\n\u003e\n\u003e [1] https://anyprevout.xyz/ \"Use Cases\" section\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------\n\u003e\n\u003e Subject: Digest Footer\n\u003e\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\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------\n\u003e\n\u003e End of bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 83, Issue 40\n\u003e *******************************************\n\u003e\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\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220425/ee7678ee/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "31c6c5e5f5185e71e237e86347c71302618a72eb58910c1e1404d1c08f3c579dc5dc5babd750568922337f4bf15a8ed12c25977c40c34723c7db6d6e9b3065d7"
}