From: alicexbt <alicexbt@protonmail•com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Multiple ways to do bitcoin covenants
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 08:11:28 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <G9vcdh_vztl5qzsxlbEet6nBvtC164nvV-g5e6pzUrxY4edWVroTF_h-LWnSXL0VhGQeeGpFbZA2Dm-AesIWToJ-OzdebGpqSUckw8oQseM=@protonmail.com> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1406 bytes --]
CTV and other covenant proposals, tradeoffs, and overlapping features are among the topics being explored recently. I had some views and questions on this subject.:
a) Does bitcoin already have opcodes with overlapping features? Yes
b) Can we have multiple ways with some overlapping features to do bitcoin covenants with some tradeoffs? Yes
_
c) What are these tradeoffs if we compare CTV, APO, TLUV and TXHASH+CSFS?
I am sure about a) because it was already answered in CTV chat by Jeremy and sheshek. Example: CHECKSIG and CHECKSIGADD is redundant with OP_IF and OP_ADD
Not sure if we have "consensus" on b) but I don't see anything wrong with it.
For c) I would prefer CTV because:
- Simpler
- Blockspace effient
- Can be used even without taproot
Covering bare script, as in segwit v0, is necessary. Exposing a pubkey in case of an EC break will be a disaster, and vaults imply very long lived storage. Root CA offline certificates can often have shelf life measured in decades. However, NSA has issued warnings, NIST has issued guidelines, and executive order to prepare for the quantum shift. As a result, forcing everyone into a quantum-unsafe position is unsustainable.
Other developers might use a different way to do bitcoin covenant for other reasons. Example: Russel O'Connor would prefer general OP_TXHASH design
/dev/fd0
Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com/) secure email.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2334 bytes --]
next reply other threads:[~2022-04-28 8:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-28 8:11 alicexbt [this message]
2022-05-01 23:02 ` Billy Tetrud
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='G9vcdh_vztl5qzsxlbEet6nBvtC164nvV-g5e6pzUrxY4edWVroTF_h-LWnSXL0VhGQeeGpFbZA2Dm-AesIWToJ-OzdebGpqSUckw8oQseM=@protonmail.com' \
--to=alicexbt@protonmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.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