From: "James O'Beirne" <james.obeirne@gmail•com>
To: Andrew Poelstra <apoelstra@wpsoftware•net>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposed BIP for OP_CAT
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 12:04:52 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPfvXfK667yenYeZi_4iUWskdVaJgS37PC3X0dqYNaehPErDcQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZTPoK3aD8kFyhy3T@camus>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1461 bytes --]
I have to admit - I'm somewhat baffled at the enthusiasm for a "just CAT"
softfork, since I can't see that it would achieve much. It's indicative to
me that there isn't a compelling example to date that (i) actually has
working code and (ii) only relies upon CAT. I'm not averse to CAT, just
confused that there's a lot of enthusiasm for a CAT-only fork.
To do actually-interesting covenants, afacit you'd need "introspection"
opcodes and/or CHECKSIGFROMSTACK - and even then, for almost all
applications I'm familiar with, that kind of CAT-based approach would be
much more circuitous than the alternatives that have been discussed for
years on this list.
> Vaults
I don't think this is actually a use-case that CAT materially helps with.
Andrew's posts, while well written and certainly foundational, do not
sketch a design for vaults that someone would actually use. I don't see how
CAT alone (without many auxiliary introspection opcodes) facilitates vaults
that clear the usability hurdles I describe in this paper:
https://jameso.be/vaults.pdf. For example, batched withdrawals and partial
unvaultings don't seem possible.
Even with introspection opcodes, Burak's (
https://brqgoo.medium.com/emulating-op-vault-with-elements-opcodes-bdc7d8b0fe71)
prototype wasn't able to handle revaulting - an important feature for
usability (https://twitter.com/jamesob/status/1636546085186412544).
> Tree signatures
To what extent does Taproot obviate this use?
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1935 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-26 16:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-21 5:08 Ethan Heilman
2023-10-21 5:49 ` alicexbt
2023-10-21 15:03 ` Andrew Poelstra
2023-10-26 16:04 ` James O'Beirne [this message]
2023-10-21 16:10 ` Greg Sanders
2023-10-21 20:24 ` Ethan Heilman
2023-10-22 8:58 ` vjudeu
2023-10-24 19:47 ` Steven Roose
2023-10-26 1:53 ` Ethan Heilman
2023-10-23 2:13 ` Rusty Russell
2023-10-23 12:26 ` Anthony Towns
2023-10-23 13:41 ` Andrew Poelstra
2023-10-24 0:48 ` Rusty Russell
2023-10-24 1:17 ` Andrew Poelstra
2023-10-24 3:45 ` Rusty Russell
2023-10-24 13:05 ` Andrew Poelstra
2023-10-26 21:55 ` Peter Todd
2023-10-27 18:32 ` Anthony Towns
2023-10-23 5:13 vjudeu
2023-10-26 14:30 ` Ryan Grant
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=CAPfvXfK667yenYeZi_4iUWskdVaJgS37PC3X0dqYNaehPErDcQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=james.obeirne@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=apoelstra@wpsoftware$(echo .)net \
--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