Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 801EAC002D for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 13:34:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 670D360D6E for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 13:34:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.091 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.091 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD=1.997, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_MIME_MALF=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CTDYD3MkVgnn for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 13:34:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-ed1-x52a.google.com (mail-ed1-x52a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52a]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B95D60AA8 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 13:34:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ed1-x52a.google.com with SMTP id p18so13258042edr.7 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 06:34:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=z+2j0kCLe6pT5IOXFBgOM4Gg2lwXJ13n5+k0lIQL/oQ=; b=dRiz8RISlx4d+w5nXRqSqhowXTaYEZyI5zFgmU/1fJHrwnEQBvXa0fEviJ4++WcPnr nWIFmFFvv/GEIYtrI7WX04ZULR1XIPLyL/9GQt35aQfELWLB7mDNrmqhBn+ZMh/PjGpM lHgTneGIm9NZ6zy76eALGVRBd4yH5KQ8plArn8elfxMXTiMVG+G5d/J1ybfX5bh5aMDd rxMR0JzLOBTI2KR0namcGm4B01duKEuF7IkO8unkBblYovMzlG3IiTteQYmHRS8S0bVu H66DuB9fX8Gh8O1zwtHEEL3FoaFbeTGoXiQC3loWvPJ/VowqEAsRvv0Xt95SSrHJD1HU JOpw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=z+2j0kCLe6pT5IOXFBgOM4Gg2lwXJ13n5+k0lIQL/oQ=; b=JqmRhqBAy0LyGiWFpoij+pSzIX36uKH5fI/iCUlgR1V4GUyGE3fB1kHxJkdy1/fs0K nD6u2DPeqy8gJ9bkq/LpgZEypO5v2uCnPIzABsNKHp5bcfnKMLe0rg4oz14ecptXNmPI AG3AhBj2s2maiQP++Vg7pnXfXNRjbUZ4lj2v0rkuQ1U2zNBtG4J3khbUTWB5Qs5ykxYN Uylss174kcBx0JrBOkCTw6De7Y7Is6FM+Tc9uFN/CdChjPNZajwm5qvtv7oB1YWAzmpo qnYfY+NODqMIpoG+Gx85ycj9mzbDgaIfcPv+Vj0EZMFeZD2ezgAJHkbQvTb5EQ/pccrE Ml4w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532v1b3sTC7JpdJQIXIywlNvWWR8/Xs6zZlxXPxAvph7HwoLmZ2B c1+DmNjvZtDq/uipw+5cqLL/PY06QMOBCgUv78U4HiyPWaK+60BL X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyLZkwocgaqiwo+26TNgrsFCG5bVZ1p0N5I9qkDs6y2Tu2ShovnjOA1uX5hgjyJGK+CZlUorBoGDbUek9ITQy4= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:5c9:b0:420:aac6:257b with SMTP id n9-20020a05640205c900b00420aac6257bmr18942997edx.128.1650893677033; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 06:34:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: =?UTF-8?Q?Hampus_Sj=C3=B6berg?= Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 17:34:25 +0400 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002e7eb405dd7aa3b3" Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] ANYPREVOUT in place of CTV 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: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 13:34:40 -0000 --0000000000002e7eb405dd7aa3b3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi pushd. Would you mind clarifying what you mean by BIP118 being a premature idea? SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT, or SIGHASH_NOINPUT, as it was called back then, was first proposed in the original Lightning Network whitepaper back in 2015. It has been discussed on and off for many years now. I would not call it a premature idea. Now, the revised "Taprooted" version called ANYPREVOUT is a couple of years old, so going with the NOINPUT version could be a safer bet (though that's a bit ridiculous in my opinion). Regarding that you do not find use-cases interesting. That's all fine I suppose, but in the Lightning Network scene, I think it's fair to say that there's widespread enthusiasm in getting a working eltoo solution, which necessitates something like NOINPUT/ANYPREVOUT. And even if eltoo wouldn't happen, enabling spacechains, covenants and blind statechains seem like sufficient use-cases to me. Cheers Hampus On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 9:32 PM pushd via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I would like to know people's sentiment about doing (a very slightly > tweaked version of) BIP118 in place of (or before doing) BIP119. > > > NACK for the below reasons: > > - Premature idea > - I do not find use cases interesting > - We are still in research phase of implementing covenants in bitcoin and > looking for the best proposal > - Taproot soft fork was recently activated and its too soon > - Not enough documentation available > - Could not find any pull request in core for BIP 118 that can be reviewed > - Not enough tools available for testing > > > pushd > --- > > parallel lines meet at infinity? > > ------- Original Message ------- > On Friday, April 22nd, 2022 at 5:30 PM, > bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote: > > Send bitcoin-dev mailing list submissions to > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > bitcoin-dev-owner@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of bitcoin-dev digest..." > > Today's Topics: > > 1. ANYPREVOUT in place of CTV (darosior) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 11:11:41 +0000 > From: darosior darosior@protonmail.com > > To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > Subject: [bitcoin-dev] ANYPREVOUT in place of CTV > Message-ID: > > p3P0m2_aNXd-4oYhFjCKJyI8zQXahmZed6bv7lnj9M9HbP9gMqMtJr-pP7XRAPs-rn_fJuGu1cv9ero5i8f0cvyZrMXYPzPx17CxJ2ZSvRk=@protonmail.com > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > I would like to know people's sentiment about doing (a very slightly > tweaked version of) BIP118 in place of > (or before doing) BIP119. > > SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT and its precedent iterations have been discussed for > over 6 years. It presents proven and > implemented usecases, that are demanded and (please someone correct me if > i'm wrong) more widely accepted than > CTV's. > > SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUTANYSCRIPT, if its "ANYONECANPAY" behaviour is made > optional [0], can emulate CTV just fine. > Sure then you can't have bare or Segwit v0 CTV, and it's a bit more > expensive to use. But we can consider CTV > an optimization of APO-AS covenants. > > CTV advocates have been presenting vaults as the flagship usecase. > Although as someone who've been trying to > implement practical vaults for the past 2 years i doubt CTV is necessary > nor sufficient for this (but still > useful!), using APO-AS covers it. And it's not a couple dozen more virtual > bytes that are going to matter for > a potential vault user. > > If after some time all of us who are currently dubious about CTV's stated > usecases are proven wrong by onchain > usage of a less efficient construction to achieve the same goal, we could > roll-out CTV as an optimization. In > the meantime others will have been able to deploy new applications > leveraging ANYPREVOUT (Eltoo, blind > statechains, etc..[1]). > > Given the interest in, and demand for, both simple covenants and better > offchain protocols it seems to me that > BIP118 is a soft fork candidate that could benefit more (if not most of) > Bitcoin users. > Actually i'd also be interested in knowing if people would oppose the > APO-AS part of BIP118, since it enables > CTV's features, for the same reason they'd oppose BIP119. > > [0] That is, to not commit to the other inputs of the transaction (via > sha_sequences and maybe also > sha_amounts). Cf > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0118.mediawiki#signature-message > . > > [1] https://anyprevout.xyz/ "Use Cases" section > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > ------------------------------ > > End of bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 83, Issue 40 > ******************************************* > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --0000000000002e7eb405dd7aa3b3 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi pushd.
Would you mind c= larifying what you mean by BIP118 being a premature idea?
SIGHASH= _ANYPREVOUT, or SIGHASH_NOINPUT, as it was called back then, was first prop= osed in the original Lightning Network whitepaper back in 2015.
I= t has been discussed on and off for many years now. I would not call it a p= remature idea.

Now, the revised "Taproote= d" version called ANYPREVOUT is a couple of years old, so going with t= he NOINPUT version could be a safer bet (though that's a bit ridiculous= in my opinion).

Regarding that you do not fin= d use-cases interesting. That's all fine I suppose, but in the Lightnin= g Network scene, I think it's fair to say that there's widespread e= nthusiasm in getting a working eltoo solution, which necessitates something= like NOINPUT/ANYPREVOUT.
And even if eltoo wouldn't happen, = enabling spacechains, covenants and blind statechains seem like sufficient = use-cases to me.

Cheers
Hampus

On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 9:32 PM pushd via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundati= on.org> wrote:

I would like to know people's sentiment about doing (a very slightly= tweaked version of) BIP118 in place of (or before doing) BIP119.


NACK for the below reasons:

- Premature idea
- I do not find use cases interesting
- We are still in research phase of implementing covenants in bitcoin and l= ooking for the best proposal
- Taproot soft fork was recently activated and its too soon
- Not enough documentation available
- Could not find any pull request in core for BIP 118 that can be reviewed<= br> - Not enough tools available for testing


pushd
---

parallel lines meet at infinity?

------- Original Message -------
On Friday, April 22nd, 2022 at 5:30 PM, bitcoin-dev-request@lists.l= inuxfoundation.org wrote:

Send bitcoin-dev mailing list submissions to
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoi= n-dev
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
bitcoin-dev-owner@lists.linuxfoundation.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of bitcoin-dev digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. ANYPREVOUT in place of CTV (darosior)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 11:11:41 +0000
From: darosior darosior@protonmail.com

To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org

Subject: [bitcoin-dev] ANYPREVOUT in place of CTV
Message-ID:
p3P0m2_aNXd-4oYhFjCKJyI8zQXahmZed6bv7lnj9M9HbP9gMqMtJr-pP7XRAP= s-rn_fJuGu1cv9ero5i8f0cvyZrMXYPzPx17CxJ2ZSvRk=3D@protonmail.com

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dutf-8

I would like to know people's sentiment about doing (a very slightly= tweaked version of) BIP118 in place of
(or before doing) BIP119.

SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT and its precedent iterations have been discussed for = over 6 years. It presents proven and
implemented usecases, that are demanded and (please someone correct me if i= 'm wrong) more widely accepted than
CTV's.

SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUTANYSCRIPT, if its "ANYONECANPAY" behaviour i= s made optional [0], can emulate CTV just fine.
Sure then you can't have bare or Segwit v0 CTV, and it's a bit more= expensive to use. But we can consider CTV
an optimization of APO-AS covenants.

CTV advocates have been presenting vaults as the flagship usecase. Altho= ugh as someone who've been trying to
implement practical vaults for the past 2 years i doubt CTV is necessary no= r sufficient for this (but still
useful!), using APO-AS covers it. And it's not a couple dozen more virt= ual bytes that are going to matter for
a potential vault user.

If after some time all of us who are currently dubious about CTV's s= tated usecases are proven wrong by onchain
usage of a less efficient construction to achieve the same goal, we could r= oll-out CTV as an optimization. In
the meantime others will have been able to deploy new applications leveragi= ng ANYPREVOUT (Eltoo, blind
statechains, etc..[1]).

Given the interest in, and demand for, both simple covenants and better = offchain protocols it seems to me that
BIP118 is a soft fork candidate that could benefit more (if not most of) Bi= tcoin users.
Actually i'd also be interested in knowing if people would oppose the A= PO-AS part of BIP118, since it enables
CTV's features, for the same reason they'd oppose BIP119.

[0] That is, to not commit to the other inputs of the transaction (via <= code>sha_sequences and maybe also
sha_amounts). Cf https://g= ithub.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0118.mediawiki#signature-message= .

[1] https://anypre= vout.xyz/ "Use Cases" section

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoi= n-dev

------------------------------

End of bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 83, Issue 40
*******************************************

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--0000000000002e7eb405dd7aa3b3--