Hi Luke,

But none of this ST nonsense, please. That alone is a reason to oppose it.

Agree. Any soft fork that uses only speedy trial should be opposed. There are few other reasons to oppose it as well:

- Premature idea
- Use cases are not interesting for all users
- We are still in research phase of implementing covenants in bitcoin and looking for the best proposal
- Taproot soft fork was recently activated and its too soon
- Not enough documentation available
- Could not find any pull request in core for BIP 118 that can be reviewed
- Not enough tools available for testing

I am planning to maintain a page for all the NACKs against BIP 118 based on this thread. I am assuming you don't mind including your name in it.

pushd

---
parallel lines meet at infinity?

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 17:01:14 +0000
From: Luke Dashjr luke@dashjr.org

To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, darosior
darosior@protonmail.com

Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] ANYPREVOUT in place of CTV
Message-ID: 202204221701.15307.luke@dashjr.org

Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

There's no reason for before/after/in place. We have version bits specifically
so we can have multiple deployments in parallel.

But none of this ST nonsense, please. That alone is a reason to oppose it.

Luke

On Friday 22 April 2022 11:11:41 darosior via bitcoin-dev wrote:

I would like to know people's sentiment about doing (a very slightly
tweaked version of) BIP118 in place of (or before doing) BIP119.

SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT and its precedent iterations have been discussed for
over 6 years. It presents proven and implemented usecases, that are
demanded and (please someone correct me if i'm wrong) more widely accepted
than CTV's.

SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUTANYSCRIPT, if its "ANYONECANPAY" behaviour is made
optional [0], can emulate CTV just fine. Sure then you can't have bare or
Segwit v0 CTV, and it's a bit more expensive to use. But we can consider
CTV an optimization of APO-AS covenants.

CTV advocates have been presenting vaults as the flagship usecase. Although
as someone who've been trying to implement practical vaults for the past 2
years i doubt CTV is necessary nor sufficient for this (but still useful!),
using APO-AS covers it. And it's not a couple dozen more virtual bytes that
are going to matter for a potential vault user.

If after some time all of us who are currently dubious about CTV's stated
usecases are proven wrong by onchain usage of a less efficient construction
to achieve the same goal, we could roll-out CTV as an optimization. In the
meantime others will have been able to deploy new applications leveraging
ANYPREVOUT (Eltoo, blind statechains, etc..[1]).

Given the interest in, and demand for, both simple covenants and better
offchain protocols it seems to me that BIP118 is a soft fork candidate that
could benefit more (if not most of) Bitcoin users. Actually i'd also be
interested in knowing if people would oppose the APO-AS part of BIP118,
since it enables CTV's features, for the same reason they'd oppose BIP119.

[0] That is, to not commit to the other inputs of the transaction (via
sha_sequences and maybe also sha_amounts). Cf
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0118.mediawiki#signature-me
ssage.

[1] https://anyprevout.xyz/ "Use Cases" section
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

------------------------------

End of bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 83, Issue 42
*******************************************