Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2021 00:50:50 +0000
To: "David A. Harding" <dave@dtrt.org>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <5keA_aPvmCO5yBh_mBQ6Z5SwnnvEW0T-3vahesaDh57f-qv4FbG1SFAzDvT3rFhre6kFl282VsxV_pynwn_CdvF7fzH2q9NW1ZQHPH1pmdo=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210704203230.37hlpdyzr4aijiet@ganymede>
References: <CAD5xwhjmu-Eee47Ho5eA6E6+aAdnchLU0OVZo=RTHaXnN17x8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210704011341.ddbiruuomqovrjn6@ganymede>
 <CAD5xwhimPBEV_tLpSPxs9B+XGUhvPx_dnhok=8=hyksyi4=B6g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210704203230.37hlpdyzr4aijiet@ganymede>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unlimited covenants,
	was Re:  CHECKSIGFROMSTACK/{Verify} BIP for Bitcoin
Precedence: list

Good morning Dave,

> On Sun, Jul 04, 2021 at 11:39:44AM -0700, Jeremy wrote:
>
> > However, I think the broader community is unconvinced by the cost benef=
it
> > of arbitrary covenants. See
> > https://medium.com/block-digest-mempool/my-worries-about-too-generalize=
d-covenants-5eff33affbb6
> > as a recent example. Therefore as a critical part of building consensus=
 on
> > various techniques I've worked to emphasize that specific additions do =
not
> > entail risk of accidentally introducing more than was bargained for to
> > respect the concerns of others.
>
> Respecting the concerns of others doesn't require lobotomizing useful
> tools. Being respectful can also be accomplished by politely showing
> that their concerns are unfounded (or at least less severe than they
> thought). This is almost always the better course IMO---it takes much
> more effort to satisfy additional engineering constraints (and prove to
> reviewers that you've done so!) than it does to simply discuss those
> concerns with reasonable stakeholders. As a demonstration, let's look
> at the concerns from Shinobi's post linked above:
>
> They seem to be worried that some Bitcoin users will choose to accept
> coins that can't subsequently be fungibily mixed with other bitcoins.
> But that's already been the case for a decade: users can accept altcoins
> that are non-fungible with bitcoins.
>
> They talk about covenants where spending is controlled by governments,
> but that seems to me exactly like China's CBDC trial.
>
> They talk about exchanges depositing users' BTC into a covenant, but
> that's just a variation on the classic not-your-keys-not-your-bitcoins
> problem. For all you know, your local exchange is keeping most of its
> BTC balance commitments in ETH or USDT.
>
> To me, it seems like the worst-case problems Shinobi describes with
> covenants are some of the same problems that already exist with
> altcoins. I don't see how recursive covenants could make any of those
> problems worse, and so I don't see any point in limiting Bitcoin's
> flexibility to avoid those problems when there are so many interesting
> and useful things that unlimited covenants could do.

The "altcoins are even worse" argument does seem quite convincing, and if B=
itcoin can survive altcoins, surely it can survive covenants too?

In before "turns out covenants are the next ICO".
i.e. ICOs are just colored coins, which are useful for keeping track of var=
ious stuff, but have then been used as a vehicle to scam people.
But I suppose that is a problem that humans will always have: limited cogni=
tion, so that *good* popular things that are outside your specific field of=
 study are indistinguishable from *bad* popular things.
So perhaps it should not be a concern on a technical level.
Maybe we should instead make articles about covenants so boring nobody will=
 hype about it (^^;)v.

Increased functionality implies increased processing, and hopefully computa=
tion devices are getting cheap enough that the increased processing implied=
 by new features should not be too onerous.


To my mind, an "inescapable" covenant (i.e. one that requires the output to=
 be paid to the same covenant) is basically a Turing machine, and equivalen=
t to a `while (true);` loop.
In a `while (true);` loop, the state of the machine reverts back to the sam=
e state, and it repeats again.
In an inescpable covenant, the control of some amount of funds reverts back=
 to the same controlling SCRIPT, and it repeats again.
Yes, you can certainly add more functionality on top of that loop, just thi=
nk of program main loops for games or daemons, which are, in essence, "just=
" `while (true) ...`.
But basically, such unbounded infinite loops are possible only under Turing=
 machines, thus I consider covenants to be Turing-complete.
Principle of Least Power should make us wonder if we need full Turing machi=
nes for the functionality.

On the other hand --- codata processing *does* allow for unbounded loops, w=
ithout requiring full Turing-completeness; they just require total function=
ality, not partial (and Turing-completeness is partial, not total).
Basically, data structures are unbounded storage, while codata structures a=
re unbounded processing.
Perhaps covenants can encode an upper bound on the number of recursions, wh=
ich prevents full Turing-completeness while allowing for a large number of =
use-cases.

(if the above paragraph makes no sense to you, hopefully this Wikipedia art=
icle will help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_functional_programming =
)
(basically my argument here is based on academic programming stuff, and mig=
ht not actually matter in real life)

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj