From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail•com>
To: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon•cc>,
"Bitcoin Protocol Discussion"
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV BIP Meeting #8 Notes
Date: Sat, 07 May 2022 22:40:10 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <HfqjtQb_3TfhHaAZzYOcUoMic1iG40qUjqlKpzOZY6PSBW1bXVFtFW4zCHFRUdOoIhrard9ZPslzbrIYO0cM-Oi37mLzeEv6MZiQ7JtulE4=@protonmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDqxOtrMrTu2Ovx32USJT2T+6DRpexct1-k3zwEEnsDPMA@mail.gmail.com>
Good morning Jorge,
> I think people may be scared of potential attacks based on covenants. For example, visacoin.
> But there was a thread with ideas of possible attacks based on covenants.
> To me the most scary one is visacoin, specially seeing what happened in canada and other places lately and the general censorship in the west, the supposed war on "misinformation" going on (really a war against truth imo, but whatever) it's getting really scary. But perhaps someone else can be more scared about a covenant to add demurrage fees to coins or something, I don't know.
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=278122
This requires *recursive* covenants.
At the time the post was made, no distinction was seen between recursive and non-recursive covenants, which is why the post points out that covenants suck.
The idea then was that anything powerful enough to provide covenants would also be powerful enough to provide *recursive* covenants, so there was no distinction made between recursive and non-recursive covenants (the latter was thought to be impossible).
However, `OP_CTV` turns out to enable sort-of covenants, but by construction *cannot* provide recursion.
It is just barely powerful enough to make a covenant, but not powerful enough to make *recursive* covenants.
That is why today we distinguish between recursive and non-recursive covenant opcodes, because we now have opcode designs that provides non-recursive covenants (when previously it was thought all covenant opcodes would provide recursion).
`visacoin` can only work as a recursive covenant, thus it is not possible to use `OP_CTV` to implement `visacoin`, regardless of your political views.
(I was also misinformed in the past and ignored `OP_CTV` since I thought that, like all the other covenant opcodes, it would enable recursive covenants.)
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-07 22:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-07 2:40 alicexbt
2022-05-07 13:22 ` Jorge Timón
2022-05-07 22:40 ` ZmnSCPxj [this message]
2022-05-08 16:32 ` Billy Tetrud
2022-05-09 15:23 ` Keagan McClelland
2022-05-10 15:09 ` Billy Tetrud
2022-05-12 11:46 ` Jorge Timón
2022-05-12 12:20 ` ZmnSCPxj
2022-05-12 17:28 ` 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='HfqjtQb_3TfhHaAZzYOcUoMic1iG40qUjqlKpzOZY6PSBW1bXVFtFW4zCHFRUdOoIhrard9ZPslzbrIYO0cM-Oi37mLzeEv6MZiQ7JtulE4=@protonmail.com' \
--to=zmnscpxj@protonmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jtimon@jtimon$(echo .)cc \
/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