Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBC26C002F for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2022 18:38:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4A784037C for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2022 18:38:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.621 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.276, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q9-5g49Xg-bs for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2022 18:38:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from azure.erisian.com.au (cerulean.erisian.com.au [139.162.42.226]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEB3840108 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2022 18:38:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from aj@azure.erisian.com.au (helo=sapphire.erisian.com.au) by azure.erisian.com.au with esmtpsa (Exim 4.92 #3 (Debian)) id 1nAcKH-0005rT-TB; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 04:38:27 +1000 Received: by sapphire.erisian.com.au (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 21 Jan 2022 04:38:22 +1000 Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 04:38:22 +1000 From: Anthony Towns To: Jeremy , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Message-ID: <20220120183822.GA1237@erisian.com.au> References: <202201182119.02687.luke@dashjr.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Spam-Score-int: -18 X-Spam-Bar: - Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV BIP review X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2022 18:38:32 -0000 On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 03:54:21PM -0800, Jeremy via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Some of it's kind of annoying because > the legal definition of covenant is [...] > so I do think things like CLTV/CSV are covenants I think that in the context of Bitcoin, the most useful definition of covenant is that it's when the scriptPubKey of a utxo restricts the scriptPubKey in the output(s) of a tx spending that utxo. CTV, TLUV, etc do that; CSV, CLTV don't. ("checksig" per se doesn't either, though of course the signature that checksig uses does -- if that signature is in the scriptPubKey rather than the scriptSig or witness, that potentially becomes a covenant too) Cheers, aj