From: "David A. Harding" <dave@dtrt•org>
To: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit•edu>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] CHECKSIGFROMSTACK/{Verify} BIP for Bitcoin
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2021 15:13:41 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210704011341.ddbiruuomqovrjn6@ganymede> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAD5xwhjmu-Eee47Ho5eA6E6+aAdnchLU0OVZo=RTHaXnN17x8A@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 965 bytes --]
On Sat, Jul 03, 2021 at 09:31:57AM -0700, Jeremy via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Note that with *just* CheckSigFromStack, while you can do some very
> valuable use cases, but without OP_CAT it does not enable sophisticated
> covenants
Do you have concerns about sophisticated covenants, and if so, would you
mind describing them? Your BIP119 CTV also mentions[1] being designed
to avoid sophisticated covenants. If this is some sort of design
principle, I'd like to understand the logic behind it.
I'm a fan of CSFS, even mentioning it on zndtoshi's recent survey[2],
but it seems artificially limited without OP_CAT. (I also stand by my
answer on that survey of believing there's a deep lack of developer
interest in CSFS at the moment. But, if you'd like to tilt at that
windmill, I won't stop you.)
-Dave
[1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0119.mediawiki#design-tradeoffs-and-risks
[2] https://twitter.com/zndtoshi/status/1405235814712422402
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-04 1:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-03 16:31 Jeremy
2021-07-03 17:50 ` Russell O'Connor
2021-07-03 18:30 ` Jeremy
2021-07-03 20:12 ` Russell O'Connor
2021-07-04 17:30 ` Jeremy
2021-07-04 19:03 ` Russell O'Connor
2021-07-06 17:54 ` Jeremy
2021-07-06 18:21 ` Russell O'Connor
2021-07-06 18:53 ` Jeremy
2021-07-04 1:13 ` David A. Harding [this message]
2021-07-04 18:39 ` Jeremy
2021-07-04 20:32 ` [bitcoin-dev] Unlimited covenants, was " David A. Harding
2021-07-04 20:50 ` Billy Tetrud
2021-07-05 0:50 ` ZmnSCPxj
2021-07-05 1:02 ` Russell O'Connor
2021-07-05 2:10 ` Russell O'Connor
2021-07-05 2:39 ` ZmnSCPxj
2021-07-05 5:04 ` Anthony Towns
2021-07-05 13:46 ` Matt Corallo
2021-07-05 13:51 ` Greg Sanders
2022-02-03 6:17 ` Anthony Towns
2021-07-05 17:20 ` Russell O'Connor
2021-07-06 6:25 ` Billy Tetrud
2021-07-06 10:20 ` Sanket Kanjalkar
2021-07-06 11:26 ` Russell O'Connor
2021-07-06 18:36 ` Jeremy
2021-07-07 4:26 ` ZmnSCPxj
2021-07-07 6:12 ` Billy Tetrud
2021-07-07 13:12 ` Russell O'Connor
2021-07-07 14:24 ` Russell O'Connor
2021-07-07 17:26 ` Jeremy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210704011341.ddbiruuomqovrjn6@ganymede \
--to=dave@dtrt$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jlrubin@mit$(echo .)edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox