Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV Signet Parameters

From: Nadav Ivgi <nadav@shesek•info>
To: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian•com.au>,
	 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
	<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV Signet Parameters
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 04:10:25 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGXD5f1hUE_CzV5YGa4wN1w75QbaPYdVaBPiFYjarEiCyNGYsw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220422005804.GC5616@erisian.com.au>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4037 bytes --]

> nobody's going to benefit from that possibility anyway.

 James O'Beirne's simple-ctv-vault appears to be using bare CTV outputs:

https://github.com/jamesob/simple-ctv-vault/blob/7dd6c4ca25debb2140cdefb79b302c65d1b24937/main.py#L217-L218
https://github.com/jamesob/simple-ctv-vault/blob/7dd6c4ca25debb2140cdefb79b302c65d1b24937/main.py#L324-L325

I guess this suggests that it was not tested on signet?

On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 3:58 AM Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 10:05:20AM -0500, Jeremy Rubin via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > I can probably make some show up sometime soon. Note that James' vault
> uses
> > one at the top-level https://github.com/jamesob/simple-ctv-vault, but I
> > think the second use of it (since it's not segwit wrapped) wouldn't be
> > broadcastable since it's nonstandard.
>
> The whole point of testing is so that bugs like "wouldn't be broadcastable
> since it's nonstandard" get fixed. If these things are still in the
> "interesting thought experiment" stage, but nobody but Jeremy is
> interested enough to start making them consistent with the proposed
> consensus and policy rules, it seems very premature to be changing
> consensus or policy rules.
>
> > One case where you actually use less space is if you have a few different
> > sets of customers at N different fee priority level. Then, you might need
> > to have N independent batches, or risk overpaying against the customer's
> > priority level. Imagine I have 100 tier 1 customers and 1000 tier 2
> > customers. If I batcher tier 1 with tier 2, to provide tier 1 guarantees
> > I'd need to pay tier 1 rate for 10x the customers. With CTV, I can
> combine
> > my batch into a root and N batch outputs. This eliminates the need for
> > inputs, signatures, change outputs, etc per batch, and can be slightly
> > smaller. Since the marginal benefit on that is still pretty small, having
> > bare CTV improves the margin of byte wise saving.
>
> Bare CTV only saves bytes when *spending* -- but this is when you're
> creating the 1100 outputs, so an extra 34 or 67 bytes of witness data
> seems fairly immaterial (0.05% extra vbytes?). It doesn't make the small
> commitment tx any smaller.
>
> ie, scriptPubKey looks like:
>  - bare ctv: [push][32 bytes][op_nop4]
>  - p2wsh: [op_0][push][32 bytes]
>  - p2tr: [op_1][push][32 bytes]
>
> while witness data looks like:
>  - bare ctv: empty scriptSig, no witness
>  - pw2sh: empty scriptSig, witness = "[push][32 bytes][op_nop4]"
>  - p2tr: empty scriptSig, witness = 33B control block,
>          "[push][32 bytes][op_nop4]"
>
> You might get more a benefit from bare ctv if you don't pay all 1100
> outputs in a single tx when fees go lower; but if so, you're also wasting
> quite a bit more block space in that case due to the intermediate
> transactions you're introducing, which makes it seem unlikely that
> you care about the extra 9 or 17 vbytes bare CTV would save you per
> intermediate tx...
>
> I admit that I am inclined towards micro-optimising things to save
> those bytes if it's easy, which does incline me towards bare CTV; but
> the closest thing we have to real user data suggests that nobody's going
> to benefit from that possibility anyway.
>
> > Even if we got rid of bare ctv, segwit v0 CTV would still exist, so we
> > couldn't use OP_SUCCESSx there either. segwitv0 might be desired if
> someone
> > has e.g. hardware modules or MPC Threshold Crypto that only support ECDSA
> > signatures, but still want CTV.
>
> If you desire new features, then you might have to upgrade old hardware
> that can't support them.
>
> Otherwise that would be an argument to never use OP_SUCCESSx: someone
> might want to use whatever new feature we might imagine on hardware that
> only supports ECDSA signatures.
>
> Cheers,
> aj
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5541 bytes --]