Return-Path: <rusty@gandalf.ozlabs.org>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46DE0C000B
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 15 Feb 2022 08:53:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32B2B4012A
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 15 Feb 2022 08:53:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.652
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.652 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25,
 SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 w5mJaHggwnCQ
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 15 Feb 2022 08:53:02 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from gandalf.ozlabs.org (mail.ozlabs.org
 [IPv6:2404:9400:2221:ea00::3])
 by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BEDE4000B
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 15 Feb 2022 08:53:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by gandalf.ozlabs.org (Postfix, from userid 1011)
 id 4JyZSg460xz4xmx; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 19:46:27 +1100 (AEDT)
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Jeremy Rubin <jeremy.l.rubin@gmail.com>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAD5xwhgP2_51Dvar0f1tsMrCXZ61W9-HnLgR45D-54Oc7-X1ag@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMZUoK=pkZuovtifBzdqhoyegzG+9hRTFEc7fG9nZPDK4KbU3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <87leymuiu8.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
 <CAD5xwhgP2_51Dvar0f1tsMrCXZ61W9-HnLgR45D-54Oc7-X1ag@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 19:15:10 +1030
Message-ID: <87k0dwr015.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] TXHASH + CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY in lieu of CTV
	and ANYPREVOUT
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, 15 Feb 2022 08:53:03 -0000

Jeremy Rubin <jeremy.l.rubin@gmail.com> writes:
> Rusty,
>
> Note that this sort of design introduces recursive covenants similarly to
> how I described above.
>
> Whether that is an issue or not precluding this sort of design or not, I
> defer to others.

Good point!

But I think it's a distinction without meaning: AFAICT iterative
covenants are possible with OP_CTV and just as powerful, though
technically finite.  I can constrain the next 100M spends, for
example: if I insist on those each having incrementing nLocktime,
that's effectively forever.

Thanks!
Rusty.