Peter Todd (npub1ej4…ndrm) specifically said in his post:
"The current CTV proposal in BIP-119 has only one hashing mode, known as the DefaultCheckTemplateVerifyHash, which essentially commits to every aspect of the spending transaction in the template hash. From a practical point of view this means that in many circumstances the only available mechanism for fee payment will be CPFP. As mentioned above, this is a potential problem due to it making out-of-band fee payment a non-trivial cost savings in cases where the CTV-using transactions are small."
So he's specifically saying that out-of-band fee payment could be cost savings for small CTV-using transactions.
IMO, you could make the exact same argument for lightning force closures. Even though lightning will move to anchor outputs, which means 0 fee force closures, that will be CPFP'd thanks to "package relay". Those small transactions could have cost savings with out-of-band fee payments.
But obviously, no one is pushing against package relay. For most small transactions, out-of-band fee payments would be a small cost savings.
In fact, this statement could technically be true for any pre-signed transaction scheme. Does that mean we should never have any pre-signed transaction schemes? Hardly.
So, since this issue already exists in Bitcoin and is only relevant to very small transactions, and since CTV can actually decentralize mining even more (https://utxos.org/uses/miningpools/), I'd argue these issues are known, and the concerns with not having CTV are actually a great risk to Bitcoin. Not having covenants, IMO, is a huge risk to Bitcoin custody centralization and people choosing not to self-custody.
CAT is an entirely different beast, and I agree that the risks are much more unknown.
https://petertodd.org/2024/covenant-dependent-layer-2-review
matthewjablack / Matt ₿lack ⚡️🍁 13% Bitcoiner
npub1wf…qsxhy
2024-09-11 19:40:59
in reply to nevent1q…x44j
Author Public Key
npub1wf7w8mrzqs3uvd8wsp774462d3rtttzwetuhpmzjccgn63emy4ls5qsxhyPublished at
2024-09-11 19:40:59Event JSON
{
"id": "bc5fb8f995637186a913c066aea4bbe3039ec8216dc50492699fb111404a7ef4",
"pubkey": "727ce3ec620423c634ee807dead74a6c46b5ac4ecaf970ec52c6113d473b257f",
"created_at": 1726083659,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"ccaa58e37c99c85bc5e754028a718bd46485e5d3cb3345691ecab83c755d48cc",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"e",
"a6abb26444d62656e63b8bf3070e98e8aa16db7c08487a22802eebc83139dc60",
"wss://nostr-pub.wellorder.net",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"1b745683e2a49424ce4b585894a7da56c1459e5b79adee8197eefc9d76cf31e8",
"wss://nostr-pub.wellorder.net",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"428c7eb534e106bba3ada46710f4e9e36291318b632b12de0fafdaa53d55283e"
],
[
"p",
"053935081a69624466034446eda3374d905652ddbf8217c88708182687a33066"
],
[
"p",
"727ce3ec620423c634ee807dead74a6c46b5ac4ecaf970ec52c6113d473b257f"
],
[
"p",
"98a386c766ac9250f4ce1b500662fd08e4d464a1915743eedc83bd50521decac"
]
],
"content": " nostr:npub1ej493cmun8y9h3082spg5uvt63jgtewneve526g7e2urca2afrxqm3ndrm specifically said in his post:\n\n\"The current CTV proposal in BIP-119 has only one hashing mode, known as the DefaultCheckTemplateVerifyHash, which essentially commits to every aspect of the spending transaction in the template hash. From a practical point of view this means that in many circumstances the only available mechanism for fee payment will be CPFP. As mentioned above, this is a potential problem due to it making out-of-band fee payment a non-trivial cost savings in cases where the CTV-using transactions are small.\"\n\nSo he's specifically saying that out-of-band fee payment could be cost savings for small CTV-using transactions.\n\nIMO, you could make the exact same argument for lightning force closures. Even though lightning will move to anchor outputs, which means 0 fee force closures, that will be CPFP'd thanks to \"package relay\". Those small transactions could have cost savings with out-of-band fee payments. \n\nBut obviously, no one is pushing against package relay. For most small transactions, out-of-band fee payments would be a small cost savings. \n\nIn fact, this statement could technically be true for any pre-signed transaction scheme. Does that mean we should never have any pre-signed transaction schemes? Hardly. \n\nSo, since this issue already exists in Bitcoin and is only relevant to very small transactions, and since CTV can actually decentralize mining even more (https://utxos.org/uses/miningpools/), I'd argue these issues are known, and the concerns with not having CTV are actually a great risk to Bitcoin. Not having covenants, IMO, is a huge risk to Bitcoin custody centralization and people choosing not to self-custody. \n\nCAT is an entirely different beast, and I agree that the risks are much more unknown. \n\nhttps://petertodd.org/2024/covenant-dependent-layer-2-review",
"sig": "21e85ce1d4ca7df09a9fa83b4272fcb27cf85f92f104a345129b2a3fd53d5c84bcd02bfd89f710bb4abd2be8f25013590ed148c4a0c408eab53e2fbbf896eeef"
}