Three days ago I replied[1] to this post with a simple question: What steps have the authors taken to reduce the risks that the proposed protocol changes are free of relevant patent encumbrance? In any case, though it's obviously important to make sure that authors or their employers don't have any troublesome restrictions on the consensus rules, it's just as important that third parties don't have any either and much harder to gain confidence on. For prior consensus changes significant effort went into making sure that they wouldn't create an issue _in consensus rules_ since they're not-optional and it's now clear that it was quite worthwhile-- I can only imagine the climate has gotten worse. I consider a clearance effort to be part of the required engineering for any mandatory to implement consensus rule, since even if *you're* hidden in a cave and immune to infringement litigation many Bitcoin users are not and causing users to get it with lawsuits or fees to use Bitcoin would presumably be a tradeoff that made any change unacceptable. (To be clear, this has always been done previously-- but not with proposals coming from outside the Bitcoin project it sounds like it may have been missed). [1] Aside, Somehow this message seems to have resulted in my google account being suspended and it's taken me days to recover it. I'm told the list mods saw my message but were unable to pass it through to the list. After recovering my account, I observed I had an offlist message from obeirne basically asking what I meant by IPR, correctly inferring I might be asking about patents, and then listing the authors. I replied to it and had google inform me that the sender was blocking me. :-/ On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 11:54 AM James O'Beirne wrote: > Good morning, > > A letter has been published advocating for the final review and > activation of OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY (BIP-119) and OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK > (BIP-348). > > The full text of the letter can be found at https://ctv-csfs.com. It is > reproduced below. > > --- > > To the technical bitcoin community, > > We believe that the best next step for bitcoin would be to activate > OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY (CTV, BIP-119) and OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK (CSFS, > BIP-348). These opcodes enable functionality for a broad set of uses > that will allow bitcoin to preserve and expand its role as a scarce, > censorship-resistant store of value. > > While there are a few promising proposals to improve bitcoin at the > consensus layer which may someday be deployed, we believe that CTV and > CSFS are uniquely well reviewed, simple, and have been proven to be both > safe and widely demanded. > > CTV was first formalized in BIP-119 over 5 years ago. Despite many > attempts at refinement or replacement, it has remained the most widely > preferred method for enforcing pregenerated transaction sequences using > consensus. It unlocks valuable functionality for scaling solutions, > vaults, congestion control, non-custodial mining, discreet log > contracts, and more. > > CSFS is a primitive opcode that has been deployed to Blockstream’s > Elements for at least 8 years. It represents no significant > computational burden over bitcoin’s most often used opcode, OP_CHECKSIG. > It can be combined with CTV to implement ln-symmetry, a longstanding > improvement to Lightning. It also unlocks a variety of other use cases. > > We respectfully ask Bitcoin Core contributors to prioritize the review > and integration of CTV (PR #31989 or similar) and CSFS (PR #32247 or > similar) within the next six months. We believe this timeline allows for > rigorous final review and activation planning. > > This request isn't meant to suggest that these contributors dictate the > consensus process, but rather it is an acknowledgement that before these > opcodes can be activated, they must be implemented in the most widely > used bitcoin client. > > As application and protocol developers, we are convinced of the > significant benefits that these changes would bring to end users of > bitcoin – even if only considering their use for layer 1 security and > layer 2 scaling solutions. We are optimistic that given the limited size > and scope of these changes in both concept and implementation, they > represent a realistic next step in the continuing and important work of > preserving bitcoin's unique promise. > > Signed, > > Abdel (Starkware) > Andrew Poelstra (@apoelstra) > Ben Carman (@benthecarman) > Ben Kaufman (@ben-kaufman) > Brandon Black (@reardencode) > Brian Langel (for Five Bells) > Buck Perley (@puckberley) > Calle (Cashu) > Calvin Kim (@kcalvinalvin) > Chun Wang (f2pool) > Christian Decker (@cdecker) > Coinjoined Chris (Bitsurance.eu) > Evan Kaloudis (for Zeus) > fiatjaf (@fiatjaf) > Floppy (@1440000bytes) > Gary Krause (@average-gary) > Harsha Goli (@arshbot) > Hunter Beast (@cryptoquick) > Jad Mubaslat (@champbronc2) > James O’Beirne (@jamesob) > Jameson Lopp (@jlopp) > Johan Halseth (@halseth) > Luke Childs (@lukechilds) > Matt Black (for Atomic Finance) > Michael Tidwell (@miketwenty1) > Nick Hansen (for Luxor Mining) > Nitesh (@nitesh_btc) > nvk (@nvk) > Owen Kemeys (for Foundation) > Paul Sztorc (@psztorc) > Portland.HODL (for MARA Pool) > Rijndael (@rot13maxi) > Rob Hamilton (@rob1ham) > Robin Linus (@RobinLinus) > Sanket Kanjalkar (@sanket1729) > Sean Ryan (Anchorage) > Seth for Privacy (for Cake Wallet) > Simanta Gautam (Alpen Labs) > Steven Roose (@stevenroose) > stutxo (@stutxo) > Talip (@otaliptus) > mononaut (@mononautical) > vnprc (@vnprc) > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/a86c2737-db79-4f54-9c1d-51beeb765163n%40googlegroups.com > > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/CAAS2fgRGmWV8%2BxPEQrE%2BmZq9Q-mWiLwMMOaF07BaAuKxax0QXQ%40mail.gmail.com.