I would like to know people's sentiment about doing (a very slightly tweaked version of) BIP118 in place of (or before doing) BIP119.
NACK for the below reasons:
- Premature idea
- I do not find use cases interesting
- 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
pushd
---
parallel lines meet at infinity?
------- Original Message -------
On Friday, April 22nd, 2022 at 5:30 PM, bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
Send bitcoin-dev mailing list submissions to
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.orgTo subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.orgYou can reach the person managing the list at
bitcoin-dev-owner@lists.linuxfoundation.orgWhen replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of bitcoin-dev digest..."Today's Topics:
1. ANYPREVOUT in place of CTV (darosior)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 11:11:41 +0000
From: darosior darosior@protonmail.comTo: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.orgSubject: [bitcoin-dev] ANYPREVOUT in place of CTV
Message-ID:
p3P0m2_aNXd-4oYhFjCKJyI8zQXahmZed6bv7lnj9M9HbP9gMqMtJr-pP7XRAPs-rn_fJuGu1cv9ero5i8f0cvyZrMXYPzPx17CxJ2ZSvRk=@protonmail.comContent-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
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_sequencesand maybe also
sha_amounts). Cf https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0118.mediawiki#signature-message.[1] https://anyprevout.xyz/ "Use Cases" section
------------------------------
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 40
*******************************************