📅 Original date posted:2021-07-04
📝 Original message:On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 9:02 PM Russell O'Connor <roconnor at blockstream.com>
wrote:
> Bear in mind that when people are talking about enabling covenants, we are
> talking about whether OP_CAT should be allowed or not.
>
> That said, recursive covenants, the type that are most worrying, seems to
> require some kind of OP_TWEAK operation, and I haven't yet seen any
> evidence that this can be simulated with CHECKSIG(FROMSTACK). So maybe we
> should leave such worries for the OP_TWEAK operation.
>
Upon further thought, you can probably make recursive covenants even with a
fixed scritpubkey by sneaking the state into a few bits of the UTXO's
amount. Or if you try really hard, you may be able to stash your state
into a sibling output that is accessed via the txid embedded in the
prevoutpoint.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210704/b5a2a3f1/attachment-0001.html>;
Russell O'Connor [ARCHIVE] /
npub1dw…8plrw
2023-06-07 22:56:24
in reply to nevent1q…kru9
Author Public Key
npub1dw88wd5gqsqn6ufxhf9h03uk8087l7gfzdtez5csjlt6pupu4pwsj8plrwPublished at
2023-06-07 22:56:24Event JSON
{
"id": "6e7821a6af7a8c23b6649ecdac1cc9343fbcd2e18acfbed5f7140d3bab77ac7e",
"pubkey": "6b8e77368804013d7126ba4b77c7963bcfeff909135791531097d7a0f03ca85d",
"created_at": 1686178584,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"56bc44af22dcd0ffea8bab96b698a129a066e0bf7154ea8d81db4bd67e46274d",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"2997f199b6057fae106a7500c7994a5005a1370d8d38005a2d21b984287173ca",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"6b8e77368804013d7126ba4b77c7963bcfeff909135791531097d7a0f03ca85d"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2021-07-04\n📝 Original message:On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 9:02 PM Russell O'Connor \u003croconnor at blockstream.com\u003e\nwrote:\n\n\u003e Bear in mind that when people are talking about enabling covenants, we are\n\u003e talking about whether OP_CAT should be allowed or not.\n\u003e\n\u003e That said, recursive covenants, the type that are most worrying, seems to\n\u003e require some kind of OP_TWEAK operation, and I haven't yet seen any\n\u003e evidence that this can be simulated with CHECKSIG(FROMSTACK). So maybe we\n\u003e should leave such worries for the OP_TWEAK operation.\n\u003e\n\nUpon further thought, you can probably make recursive covenants even with a\nfixed scritpubkey by sneaking the state into a few bits of the UTXO's\namount. Or if you try really hard, you may be able to stash your state\ninto a sibling output that is accessed via the txid embedded in the\nprevoutpoint.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210704/b5a2a3f1/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "9e546138a0df25203cf71514c1a1c1bbc35aaa157d65760d9dda0cc44ad3fe53479f786e67f7a59a4b36bc0d862dd41520c3111b90696b07e717ffde33773d1a"
}