From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail•com>
To: "David A. Harding" <dave@dtrt•org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unlimited covenants, was Re: CHECKSIGFROMSTACK/{Verify} BIP for Bitcoin
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2021 00:50:50 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5keA_aPvmCO5yBh_mBQ6Z5SwnnvEW0T-3vahesaDh57f-qv4FbG1SFAzDvT3rFhre6kFl282VsxV_pynwn_CdvF7fzH2q9NW1ZQHPH1pmdo=@protonmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210704203230.37hlpdyzr4aijiet@ganymede>
Good morning Dave,
> On Sun, Jul 04, 2021 at 11:39:44AM -0700, Jeremy wrote:
>
> > However, I think the broader community is unconvinced by the cost benefit
> > of arbitrary covenants. See
> > https://medium.com/block-digest-mempool/my-worries-about-too-generalized-covenants-5eff33affbb6
> > as a recent example. Therefore as a critical part of building consensus on
> > various techniques I've worked to emphasize that specific additions do not
> > entail risk of accidentally introducing more than was bargained for to
> > respect the concerns of others.
>
> Respecting the concerns of others doesn't require lobotomizing useful
> tools. Being respectful can also be accomplished by politely showing
> that their concerns are unfounded (or at least less severe than they
> thought). This is almost always the better course IMO---it takes much
> more effort to satisfy additional engineering constraints (and prove to
> reviewers that you've done so!) than it does to simply discuss those
> concerns with reasonable stakeholders. As a demonstration, let's look
> at the concerns from Shinobi's post linked above:
>
> They seem to be worried that some Bitcoin users will choose to accept
> coins that can't subsequently be fungibily mixed with other bitcoins.
> But that's already been the case for a decade: users can accept altcoins
> that are non-fungible with bitcoins.
>
> They talk about covenants where spending is controlled by governments,
> but that seems to me exactly like China's CBDC trial.
>
> They talk about exchanges depositing users' BTC into a covenant, but
> that's just a variation on the classic not-your-keys-not-your-bitcoins
> problem. For all you know, your local exchange is keeping most of its
> BTC balance commitments in ETH or USDT.
>
> To me, it seems like the worst-case problems Shinobi describes with
> covenants are some of the same problems that already exist with
> altcoins. I don't see how recursive covenants could make any of those
> problems worse, and so I don't see any point in limiting Bitcoin's
> flexibility to avoid those problems when there are so many interesting
> and useful things that unlimited covenants could do.
The "altcoins are even worse" argument does seem quite convincing, and if Bitcoin can survive altcoins, surely it can survive covenants too?
In before "turns out covenants are the next ICO".
i.e. ICOs are just colored coins, which are useful for keeping track of various stuff, but have then been used as a vehicle to scam people.
But I suppose that is a problem that humans will always have: limited cognition, so that *good* popular things that are outside your specific field of study are indistinguishable from *bad* popular things.
So perhaps it should not be a concern on a technical level.
Maybe we should instead make articles about covenants so boring nobody will hype about it (^^;)v.
Increased functionality implies increased processing, and hopefully computation devices are getting cheap enough that the increased processing implied by new features should not be too onerous.
To my mind, an "inescapable" covenant (i.e. one that requires the output to be paid to the same covenant) is basically a Turing machine, and equivalent to a `while (true);` loop.
In a `while (true);` loop, the state of the machine reverts back to the same state, and it repeats again.
In an inescpable covenant, the control of some amount of funds reverts back to the same controlling SCRIPT, and it repeats again.
Yes, you can certainly add more functionality on top of that loop, just think of program main loops for games or daemons, which are, in essence, "just" `while (true) ...`.
But basically, such unbounded infinite loops are possible only under Turing machines, thus I consider covenants to be Turing-complete.
Principle of Least Power should make us wonder if we need full Turing machines for the functionality.
On the other hand --- codata processing *does* allow for unbounded loops, without requiring full Turing-completeness; they just require total functionality, not partial (and Turing-completeness is partial, not total).
Basically, data structures are unbounded storage, while codata structures are unbounded processing.
Perhaps covenants can encode an upper bound on the number of recursions, which prevents full Turing-completeness while allowing for a large number of use-cases.
(if the above paragraph makes no sense to you, hopefully this Wikipedia article will help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_functional_programming )
(basically my argument here is based on academic programming stuff, and might not actually matter in real life)
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-05 0:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-03 16:31 [bitcoin-dev] " 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
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 [this message]
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='5keA_aPvmCO5yBh_mBQ6Z5SwnnvEW0T-3vahesaDh57f-qv4FbG1SFAzDvT3rFhre6kFl282VsxV_pynwn_CdvF7fzH2q9NW1ZQHPH1pmdo=@protonmail.com' \
--to=zmnscpxj@protonmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=dave@dtrt$(echo .)org \
/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