From: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit•edu>
To: Thibaut Le Guilly <thibaut@cryptogarage•co.jp>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [dlc-dev] CTV dramatically improves DLCs
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 08:53:40 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAD5xwhhx3LmCW8Cup=mzmhosxu=WD=HVOk1pFYNe3oTmfQwJFg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABPZDUyMmyt0UCmHYfm+s-zs=iLjxXB0VtdJZ64X5HA3XLFESA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1290 bytes --]
Thibaut,
CSFS might have independent benefits, but in this case CTV is not being
used in the Oracle part of the DLC, it's being used in the user generated
mapping of Oracle result to Transaction Outcome.
So it'd only be complimentary if you came up with something CSFS based for
the Oracles.
Best,
Jeremy
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 12:59 AM Thibaut Le Guilly via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Lloyd, thanks for this excellent writeup. I must say that indeed using CTV
> seems like it would very much lower the complexity of the DLC protocol (and
> it seems like APO would also work, thanks Jonas for pointing that out).
> Though thinking about it, I can't help wondering if the ideal op code for
> DLC wouldn't actually be CHECKSIGFROMSTACK? It feels to me that this would
> give the most natural way of doing things. If I'm not mistaken, this would
> enable simply requiring an oracle signature over the outcome, without any
> special trick, and without even needing the oracle to release a nonce in
> advance (the oracle could sign `event_outcome + event_id` to avoid
> signature reuse). I must say that I haven't studied covenant opcodes in
> detail yet so is that line of thinking correct or am I missing something?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Thibaut
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2739 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-28 16:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-24 8:01 [bitcoin-dev] " Lloyd Fournier
2022-01-25 16:24 ` [bitcoin-dev] [dlc-dev] " Jonas Nick
2022-01-27 0:45 ` Thibaut Le Guilly
2022-01-28 16:53 ` Jeremy [this message]
2022-01-28 17:21 ` [bitcoin-dev] " Jeremy
2022-01-28 19:38 ` Jeremy Rubin
2022-01-28 21:14 ` Alex Schoof
2022-02-06 7:18 ` Lloyd Fournier
2022-02-06 17:56 ` Jeremy Rubin
2022-02-07 2:30 ` Thibaut Le Guilly
2022-03-15 17:28 ` Jeremy Rubin
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='CAD5xwhhx3LmCW8Cup=mzmhosxu=WD=HVOk1pFYNe3oTmfQwJFg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=jlrubin@mit$(echo .)edu \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=thibaut@cryptogarage$(echo .)co.jp \
/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