diff options
| author | ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> | 2022-07-24 23:40:35 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2022-07-24 23:40:45 +0000 |
| commit | 9c2fae6a25ebf0ea7fb8e5900cba095bacbfc22f (patch) | |
| tree | cbe1f2aaef895433f75f0e2ccd70ef2a12eb8fc7 | |
| parent | 94bfaf40e632cecb804f8c91255b8590d5cfda47 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-9c2fae6a25ebf0ea7fb8e5900cba095bacbfc22f.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-9c2fae6a25ebf0ea7fb8e5900cba095bacbfc22f.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] On a new community process to specify covenants
| -rw-r--r-- | 29/5dc01b310361482137fb496d5025645df15dcf | 135 |
1 files changed, 135 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/29/5dc01b310361482137fb496d5025645df15dcf b/29/5dc01b310361482137fb496d5025645df15dcf new file mode 100644 index 000000000..278fb9ea5 --- /dev/null +++ b/29/5dc01b310361482137fb496d5025645df15dcf @@ -0,0 +1,135 @@ +Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> +Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137]) + by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72485C002D + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sun, 24 Jul 2022 23:40:45 +0000 (UTC) +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 369FA41881 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sun, 24 Jul 2022 23:40:45 +0000 (UTC) +DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 369FA41881 +Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org; + dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com header.i=@protonmail.com + header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=protonmail3 header.b=rAkeV+zm +X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -1.101 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.101 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, + FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, + URI_NOVOWEL=0.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no +Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) + by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) + with ESMTP id G8DBHHtwjkvO + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sun, 24 Jul 2022 23:40:43 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 +DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 9A16E41768 +Received: from mail-40140.protonmail.ch (mail-40140.protonmail.ch + [185.70.40.140]) + by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A16E41768 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sun, 24 Jul 2022 23:40:43 +0000 (UTC) +Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2022 23:40:35 +0000 +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; + s=protonmail3; t=1658706041; x=1658965241; + bh=euEUvNgx6lxCxKBVEgZTIqv1lQcfD5zYt/5PaPZnKSo=; + h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To: + References:Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To: + Feedback-ID:Message-ID; + b=rAkeV+zmLh6WKDpAAuAXU9av9YfMSW0BL3C+dAMvrsfv+EoktD5ofrfBXgxMVoVGr + vLiGpbDn3PMH9/PvhYI4fesUTK+FLtGv/bYrFKjtlemLXVhU9isgnrVEiKwjzPJt1+ + 8P46vPt3mk9u3lCptAMK/YiufN7TfH/58sD3VfwzrSeQBTDBY++yeNzeePV7V4NW4j + qtBM7/xfZAmKPaazYZwYIl/32woDk7HP0cZfHw85xPpDLwVCI4SKUps9XoUcOA7gpN + lpPnFfXn/tEWYB8QRulYQUIZMB0SQVjhnraWa26ETUM0op3c+VuXkbO51o/v5mX6VO + WIJ+D+CthWbEQ== +To: "aliashraf.btc At protonmail" <aliashraf.btc@protonmail.com>, + Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> +Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> +Message-ID: <0tp0SQgSX6kVG84bQ6fk7umnv3IaC2Nx6leiGYxhayz2HCQymAuBJxaODFijqLPP0nJ1b41wE4wlC-0_H8eN2GadtVEqGBGWGlzuMtfjhDo=@protonmail.com> +In-Reply-To: <oYPIKqafRHCflmFrB8HcUnhyFabJo7u4sT8w8DPBIQ1lWcuQGiPs-dhJiupOdCnmrc_3zRhq36VngKBgSXee-hFoe6C_sUYkcz9hNz1cfAA=@protonmail.com> +References: <CALZpt+FhpZETHP8UpDGgw-Wg=m4Hxm8y9XZ9kXYgmt90_6Zt6w@mail.gmail.com> + <XSc7hh8TBcrQc8YsYbCj4dmf3YkdQwJAv50lIcAK7rMYH9gChkn_S3SkJFmATwCrD-klYeJ55FajcGQ1HVuY0msxyiah8rLbVlQG7sXkAmo=@protonmail.com> + <CALZpt+HerfG6hfkPksN=0ih5pRP6m0qAnxH3au7h3gadnHPKdQ@mail.gmail.com> + <oYPIKqafRHCflmFrB8HcUnhyFabJo7u4sT8w8DPBIQ1lWcuQGiPs-dhJiupOdCnmrc_3zRhq36VngKBgSXee-hFoe6C_sUYkcz9hNz1cfAA=@protonmail.com> +Feedback-ID: 2872618:user:proton +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] On a new community process to specify covenants +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: Sun, 24 Jul 2022 23:40:45 -0000 + +Good morning alia, Antoine, and list, + +> Hi Antoine, +> Claiming Taproot history, as best practice or a standard methodology in b= +itcoin development, is just too much. Bitcoin development methodology is an= + open problem, given the contemporary escalation/emergence of challenges, h= +istory is not=C2=A0 entitled to be hard coded as standard. +> +> Schnorr/MAST development history, is a good subject for case study, but i= +t is not guaranteed that the outcome to be always the same as your take. +> +> I'd suggest instead of inventing a multi-decades-lifecycle based methodol= +ogy (which is weird by itself, let alone installing it as a standard for bi= +tcoin projects), being open-mind=C2=A0 enough for examining more agile appr= +oaches and their inevitable effect on the course of discussions, + +A thing I have been mulling is how to prototype such mechanisms more easily= +. + +A "reasonably standard" approach was pioneered in Elements Alpha, where an = +entire federated sidechain is created and then used as a testbed for new me= +chanisms, such as SegWit and `OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK`. +However, obviously the cost is fairly large, as you need an entire federate= +d sidechain. + +It does have the nice advantage that you can use "real" coins, with real va= +lue (subject to the federation being trustworthy, admittedly) in order to c= +onvincingly show a case for real-world use. + +As I pointed out in [Smart Contracts Unchained](https://zmnscpxj.github.io/= +bitcoin/unchained.html), an alternative to using a blockchain would be to u= +se federated individual coin outpoints. + +A thing I have been pondering is to create a generic contracting platform w= +ith a richer language, which itself is just used to implement a set of `OP_= +` SCRIPT opcodes. +This is similar to my [Microcode proposal](https://lists.linuxfoundation.or= +g/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-March/020158.html) earlier this year. +Thus, it would be possible to prototype new `OP_` codes, or change the beha= +vior of existing `OP_` codes (e.g. `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` would be a change in b= +ehavior of existing `OP_CHECKSIG` and `OP_CHECKMULTISIG`), by having a tran= +slation from `OP_` codes to the richer language. +Then you could prototype a new SCRIPT `OP_` code by providing your own tran= +slation of the new `OP_` code and a SCRIPT that uses that `OP_` code, and u= +sing Smart Contract Unchained to use a real funds outpoint. + +Again, we can compare the Bitcoin consensus layer to a form of hardware: ye= +s, we *could* patch it and change it, but that requires a ***LOT*** of work= + and the new software has to be redeployed by everyone, so it is, practical= +ly speaking, hardware. +Microcode helps this by adding a softer layer without compromising the exis= +ting hard layer. + +So... what I have been thinking of is creating some kind of smart contracts= + unchained platform that allows prototyping new `OP_` codes using a microco= +de mechanism. + +Regards, +ZmnSCPxj + |