š
Original date posted:2022-04-22
š Original message:Hi Luke,
> But none of this ST nonsense, please. That alone is a reason to oppose it.
Agree. Any soft fork that uses only speedy trial should be opposed. There are few other reasons to oppose it as well:
- Premature idea
- Use cases are not interesting for all users
- 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
I am planning to maintain a page for all the NACKs against BIP 118 based on this thread. I am assuming you don't mind including your name in it.
pushd
---
parallel lines meet at infinity?
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 17:01:14 +0000
> From: Luke Dashjr luke at dashjr.org
>
> To: bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org, darosior
> darosior at protonmail.com
>
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] ANYPREVOUT in place of CTV
> Message-ID: 202204221701.15307.luke at dashjr.org
>
> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 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
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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 42
> *******************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220422/608937c7/attachment.html>;
pushd [ARCHIVE] /
npub10pā¦5pm6u
2023-06-07 23:07:59
in reply to nevent1qā¦4seq
Author Public Key
npub10pnw8ycq59uep57cs2z7tl3yuqvmph7aj0pzp3ks9ansjkh47u8q95pm6uPublished at
2023-06-07 23:07:59Event JSON
{
"id": "bd298ec5ac32588d6a114d59935bc94d204886fe737f83d9c28eff438b07c399",
"pubkey": "7866e39300a17990d3d88285e5fe24e019b0dfdd93c220c6d02f67095af5f70e",
"created_at": 1686179279,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"744ae2e156228361733cf74acfff3433f11541ee820fe9185cc72f3c98beb11b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"725601bc655b00f577a285b4e0e2a6c4c5b4d417e6c4fb40ad9844c5d3eb32c1",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2022-04-22\nš Original message:Hi Luke,\n\n\u003e But none of this ST nonsense, please. That alone is a reason to oppose it.\n\nAgree. Any soft fork that uses only speedy trial should be opposed. There are few other reasons to oppose it as well:\n\n- Premature idea\n- Use cases are not interesting for all users\n- We are still in research phase of implementing covenants in bitcoin and looking for the best proposal\n- Taproot soft fork was recently activated and its too soon\n- Not enough documentation available\n- Could not find any pull request in core for BIP 118 that can be reviewed\n- Not enough tools available for testing\n\nI am planning to maintain a page for all the NACKs against BIP 118 based on this thread. I am assuming you don't mind including your name in it.\n\npushd\n\n---\nparallel lines meet at infinity?\n\n\u003e ------------------------------\n\u003e\n\u003e Message: 3\n\u003e Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 17:01:14 +0000\n\u003e From: Luke Dashjr luke at dashjr.org\n\u003e\n\u003e To: bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org, darosior\n\u003e darosior at protonmail.com\n\u003e\n\u003e Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] ANYPREVOUT in place of CTV\n\u003e Message-ID: 202204221701.15307.luke at dashjr.org\n\u003e\n\u003e Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=\"iso-8859-1\"\n\u003e\n\u003e There's no reason for before/after/in place. We have version bits specifically\n\u003e so we can have multiple deployments in parallel.\n\u003e\n\u003e But none of this ST nonsense, please. That alone is a reason to oppose it.\n\u003e\n\u003e Luke\n\u003e\n\u003e On Friday 22 April 2022 11:11:41 darosior via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I would like to know people's sentiment about doing (a very slightly\n\u003e\u003e tweaked version of) BIP118 in place of (or before doing) BIP119.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT and its precedent iterations have been discussed for\n\u003e\u003e over 6 years. It presents proven and implemented usecases, that are\n\u003e\u003e demanded and (please someone correct me if i'm wrong) more widely accepted\n\u003e\u003e than CTV's.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUTANYSCRIPT, if its \"ANYONECANPAY\" behaviour is made\n\u003e\u003e optional [0], can emulate CTV just fine. Sure then you can't have bare or\n\u003e\u003e Segwit v0 CTV, and it's a bit more expensive to use. But we can consider\n\u003e\u003e CTV an optimization of APO-AS covenants.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e CTV advocates have been presenting vaults as the flagship usecase. Although\n\u003e\u003e as someone who've been trying to implement practical vaults for the past 2\n\u003e\u003e years i doubt CTV is necessary nor sufficient for this (but still useful!),\n\u003e\u003e using APO-AS covers it. And it's not a couple dozen more virtual bytes that\n\u003e\u003e are going to matter for a potential vault user.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e If after some time all of us who are currently dubious about CTV's stated\n\u003e\u003e usecases are proven wrong by onchain usage of a less efficient construction\n\u003e\u003e to achieve the same goal, we could roll-out CTV as an optimization. In the\n\u003e\u003e meantime others will have been able to deploy new applications leveraging\n\u003e\u003e ANYPREVOUT (Eltoo, blind statechains, etc..[1]).\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Given the interest in, and demand for, both simple covenants and better\n\u003e\u003e offchain protocols it seems to me that BIP118 is a soft fork candidate that\n\u003e\u003e could benefit more (if not most of) Bitcoin users. Actually i'd also be\n\u003e\u003e interested in knowing if people would oppose the APO-AS part of BIP118,\n\u003e\u003e since it enables CTV's features, for the same reason they'd oppose BIP119.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e [0] That is, to not commit to the other inputs of the transaction (via\n\u003e\u003e sha_sequences and maybe also sha_amounts). Cf\n\u003e\u003e https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0118.mediawiki#signature-me\n\u003e\u003e ssage.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e [1] https://anyprevout.xyz/ \"Use Cases\" section\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\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 42\n\u003e *******************************************\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220422/608937c7/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "85243272304a7b76cf14acea504baee9ad0393927b36216fb4229f7511ff8d0f5e15cf3318323169da9c128775a9dc5c4088c9faa7dd37fe31a7002847b63d3b"
}