diff options
| author | alicexbt <alicexbt@protonmail.com> | 2024-01-02 16:43:22 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2024-01-02 16:43:45 +0000 |
| commit | 0e219d702703f7031188f5e1b62b7ae028d872ae (patch) | |
| tree | 5a418549474e7a0e442a54ee64b88ad8b24d54f5 | |
| parent | 4ae4289385b4de230d7a52842be49fdd9dab1d2c (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-0e219d702703f7031188f5e1b62b7ae028d872ae.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-0e219d702703f7031188f5e1b62b7ae028d872ae.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Swift Activation - CTV
| -rw-r--r-- | 5b/93ef738f711c44a5f7e80ea00287c2b1d34a07 | 238 |
1 files changed, 238 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/5b/93ef738f711c44a5f7e80ea00287c2b1d34a07 b/5b/93ef738f711c44a5f7e80ea00287c2b1d34a07 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..509405b94 --- /dev/null +++ b/5b/93ef738f711c44a5f7e80ea00287c2b1d34a07 @@ -0,0 +1,238 @@ +Return-Path: <alicexbt@protonmail.com> +Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138]) + by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B8F2C0037 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Tue, 2 Jan 2024 16:43:45 +0000 (UTC) +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0719380BE4 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Tue, 2 Jan 2024 16:43:45 +0000 (UTC) +DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 0719380BE4 +Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org; + dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com header.i=@protonmail.com + header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=protonmail3 header.b=wlug1YVE +X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -2.099 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, + DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, + RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, + SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] + autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no +Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) + by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) + with ESMTP id hC3ih2QxFFMd + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Tue, 2 Jan 2024 16:43:43 +0000 (UTC) +Received: from mail-40137.protonmail.ch (mail-40137.protonmail.ch + [185.70.40.137]) + by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AD2880BBF + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Tue, 2 Jan 2024 16:43:43 +0000 (UTC) +DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 2AD2880BBF +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; + s=protonmail3; t=1704213821; x=1704473021; + bh=WZvnwLwOXSJ97gfsm2zKF7GqEdAVF8jVnSxaYPxo4Jc=; + h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: + Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: + Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; + b=wlug1YVE8WnOpZbIG4sMLkkmXZH7SHFpxprxkbrYSwjYImWilkv7Dlz+kiTLCJpm1 + ruSy5GvguRefi8NuJpqRHd5rGiFpdhslyZt6sDfUR88R+lkBDRphr8gQn1mCSxh9Ux + TyAFbHfLIYVhGFPDT7zvFCtupl1RKWhHbJ6f+3JVDrvi9Di0oc+NzG42ectmd6W9kk + bsbtUvImTgEEsqhzACbIy8XWiHKyTw7HJy0r0w9JKnALXYj1i++ISQkPgrmgIc2f33 + lqgnLtjv+G6Y3aaJo9neDYBP8C9mSe35QwWJ6xLGYs17zDUQ/mYK4coAuypOD/7Jph + PO/F+MUqK1Ghw== +Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2024 16:43:22 +0000 +To: Michael Folkson <michaelfolkson@protonmail.com> +From: alicexbt <alicexbt@protonmail.com> +Message-ID: <ISvX58I2-K-suhB33yY9A-zeW7xEFpF83jUgYClJH-nu469Gqa4V-YoikUfSb4BPVdFEHJh_JpH7b6OGPZdPQm_HI9_LtKRd_6vno0HdLRI=@protonmail.com> +In-Reply-To: <Zzpp9sp69_QmkUre4YUawBxOLECIfHHUf_OoD8UXXZ8Xwtmr5R62_rlGV2iwLivkST-vWusc0X9horY9qHEHKP2g4GR2ppCAuIE57VANUP0=@protonmail.com> +References: <39ecOLU7GJPGc0zWZmGuaj-a4ANySfoRjwxoUoxP480kfRRc_fsPl9MvZDC-0vSfrO3jYraHVUyxWpcg7AFHRJkEJUERYdHZlzimOwql1j0=@protonmail.com> + <2e113332-2cfd-73ec-0368-136728ceb31a@dashjr.org> + <Tp6LkEd_YZUe-0sI-EXRmGTaq4Om2RSKIOUsXS0GIsYW5z_MFnicWPz2hB1KZYJ1mihv0KrJT8DmnuDr1RCcIpFM9jCOy82BvRJySkO7Im8=@protonmail.com> + <fcOFuPPZB9Cn6nuIkAcvbECmYqISZQ-5O2hQGli-F8FOK68etbaGNlrMT4OuPSBFI9VjaBe_izZEgezy8KZbjeBIaO_QPNfwrF61IorSP44=@protonmail.com> + <ZY/PYiO2Yg3FNiYV@erisian.com.au> + <CAJowKg+VR5sYkxOtfeMeaW_ZiU8=6YC_T-21jSBk9VuFO1739g@mail.gmail.com> + <JjjvS5JDzMsm_gr9M1li4rhxJbQroFXfC8CvIYkHsncrYTB9K723Ds68KnPPm7rKyDgvVdMcUoeg8QQgRKlPsaOSvp5vc6OjB_-TiQZ5iWE=@protonmail.com> + <CAJowKg+CQWiHxcJLPE7bHbfwGo3WGQSqBNAQU-aEyCJH8YGO3w@mail.gmail.com> + <Zzpp9sp69_QmkUre4YUawBxOLECIfHHUf_OoD8UXXZ8Xwtmr5R62_rlGV2iwLivkST-vWusc0X9horY9qHEHKP2g4GR2ppCAuIE57VANUP0=@protonmail.com> +Feedback-ID: 40602938:user:proton +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 03 Jan 2024 16:20:16 +0000 +Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>, + Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au> +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Swift Activation - CTV +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 +Precedence: list +List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2024 16:43:45 -0000 + +> Your knowledge is incorrect. As far as I know in the getting on for 2 yea= +rs since the first CTV activation talk/attempt literally no one has built o= +ut a CTV use case and demonstrated it on signet with the possible exception= + of James O'Beirne's OP_VAULT which requires other new opcodes in addition = +to CTV.=20 + +This is not true. + +https://github.com/AdamISZ/pathcoin-poc + +/dev/fd0 +floppy disk guy + +Sent with Proton Mail secure email. + +On Tuesday, January 2nd, 2024 at 1:52 PM, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev <= +bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: + + +> In the interests of time I'll just pick two to respond to but I don't agr= +ee with any of your points. +>=20 +> > Covenants allow trustless utxos sharing and also are needed for vaultin= +g. The numerous use cases are documented, built out and on signet to my kno= +wledge. Check out=C2=A0utxos.org=C2=A0for a good list +>=20 +> Your knowledge is incorrect. As far as I know in the getting on for 2 yea= +rs since the first CTV activation talk/attempt literally no one has built o= +ut a CTV use case and demonstrated it on signet with the possible exception= + of James O'Beirne's OP_VAULT which requires other new opcodes in addition = +to CTV. I wish this wasn't the case. It is pitiful that we have these indiv= +iduals (such as yourself) that are so convinced CTV should be activated but= + refuse to address any concerns raised by others and refuse to work on any = +of the speculated use cases, instead choosing to just beat the activation d= +rum over and over again. +>=20 +> >=C2=A04. "Best tool for the job" is not the bar. "Safe for all" and "use= +ful for some" is the bar. Like any opcodes or tech Bitcoin has deployed in = +the past. Changing the bar is not up for discussion. +>=20 +> If you want to avoid a chain split with an activation attempt (it is poss= +ible you don't care but if you do) you have to address concerns others have= + with a particular proposal. Just because Satoshi was able to make whatever= + changes he liked in the early days of Bitcoin's history and smaller groups= + of contributors then were able to activate changes without much scrutiny (= +Bitcoin was worth a fraction of what it is today and was only supporting a = +tiny ecosystem back then) doesn't mean we can do the same today. Appointing= + Erik as the new Satoshi who can make whatever changes he likes, who define= +s the bar with ultimate certainty and decides what is and what isn't up for= + discussion also isn't a viable option. +>=20 +> Thanks +> Michael +>=20 +> -- +> Michael Folkson +> Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com +> GPG: A2CF5D71603C92010659818D2A75D601B23FEE0F +>=20 +>=20 +> Learn about Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/@portofbitcoin +>=20 +>=20 +> On Monday, 1 January 2024 at 17:11, Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com> wrote: +>=20 +>=20 +> > 1. Claiming that something that isn't activated (unusable) isn't used a= +s a non-argument +> > 2. Talking about activation methods is orthogonal. Bip8 is fine. +> >=20 +> > 3. Covenants allow trustless utxos sharing and also are needed for vaul= +ting. The numerous use cases are documented, built out and on signet to my = +knowledge. Check out utxos.org for a good list +> >=20 +> > 3. No need to discuss wild extremes that are unrelated to ctvs well doc= +umented utility. Plus multi-sig allows governments to encumber (or accident= +ally ruin) destination addresses just like covenants. +> >=20 +> > 4. "Best tool for the job" is not the bar. "Safe for all" and "useful f= +or some" is the bar. Like any opcodes or tech Bitcoin has deployed in the p= +ast. Changing the bar is not up for discussion. +> >=20 +> >=20 +> > CTV has already been demonstrated "useful for some". The question that = +needs to be answered is whether there are any specific objections to safety= +. +> >=20 +> >=20 +> >=20 +> >=20 +> >=20 +> >=20 +> >=20 +> >=20 +> >=20 +> > On Mon, Jan 1, 2024, 11:37 AM Michael Folkson <michaelfolkson@protonmai= +l.com> wrote: +> >=20 +> > > Hi Erik +> > >=20 +> > >=20 +> > > > So what exactly are the risks of CTV over multi-sig? +> > >=20 +> > >=20 +> > > It is a strange comparison. Multisig is active onchain and is being u= +sed today for all sorts of things including Lightning and setups that addre= +ss risk of single key loss or malicious signing. When discussing risks of C= +TV there are all sorts of risks that don't apply to multisig. These include= + that it is never used for any of its speculated use cases (multisig is bei= +ng used today), other proposals end up being used instead of it (I'm not su= +re there were or are competing proposals so that multisig stops being used,= + MuSig2 maybe?), chain split risks with activation if there isn't consensus= + to activate it etc. Plus usage of complex (non covenant) scripts that full= +y utilize Taproot trees is still low today. Going straight to covenants (im= +posing restrictions on where funds can be sent) and not bothering with impo= +sing all the restrictions you'd like on how funds can be spent in the first= + place seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse. Covenants don't= + ultimately solve the key management issue, they just move it from the pre = +spending phase to the post spending phase. So the benefits (although non-ze= +ro) aren't as obvious as some of the covenant advocates are suggesting. And= + although CTV is a limited covenant (some argue too limited) covenants take= +n to wild extremes could create all sorts of second order effects where fun= +ds can't be spent because of complex combinations of covenants. Even the st= +rongest CTV proponent seems to suggest that the introduction of covenants w= +ouldn't end with CTV. +> > >=20 +> > >=20 +> > > The way to reduce implementation risk for a use case of a particular = +proposal is to build out that use case and see if CTV is the best tool for = +the job. Repeatedly trying to activate CTV when there isn't consensus for i= +t to be activated does not reduce that implementation risk in any way, shap= +e or form. +> > >=20 +> > >=20 +> > > Thanks +> > > Michael +> > >=20 +> > >=20 +> > > -- +> > > Michael Folkson +> > > Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com +> > > GPG: A2CF5D71603C92010659818D2A75D601B23FEE0F +> > >=20 +> > >=20 +> > > Learn about Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/@portofbitcoin +> > >=20 +> > >=20 +> > > On Saturday, 30 December 2023 at 08:59, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev= + <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: +> > >=20 +> > >=20 +> > > > So what exactly are the risks of CTV over multi-sig? +> > > >=20 +> > > >=20 +> > > > >=20 +> > > > > + |