Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 02:20:30 +0000
To: Paul Sztorc <truthcoin@gmail.com>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <oeVo1wDV1iOMP1HnlySeSog59dmpYGvN83cGH_jutX0MdB8RInLa-CX2ArA_A0fexHAm6u9tUfrxjiUOskKGTLjjolRFFZUSV14RRpPTvFA=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <af77712d-fd9e-b8f3-8541-3edb3622150c@gmail.com>
References: <CAMZUoK=pkZuovtifBzdqhoyegzG+9hRTFEc7fG9nZPDK4KbU3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <87leymuiu8.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
 <CAD5xwhgP2_51Dvar0f1tsMrCXZ61W9-HnLgR45D-54Oc7-X1ag@mail.gmail.com>
 <0100017ee6472e02-037d355d-4c16-43b0-81d2-4a82b580ba99-000000@email.amazonses.com>
 <i710HUIxNHIqCNhkh07dzlShyDp9ZkoEokw9ZBezCFvsk05ZUy5fXK1xx_IQifLh4f3RYb8FJM_MFm7hAaQFaUM3Jy3E8QhfSzkaogAu1Gs=@protonmail.com>
 <af77712d-fd9e-b8f3-8541-3edb3622150c@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Recursive covenant opposition,
	or the absence thereof,
	was Re: TXHASH + CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY in lieu of CTV and
	ANYPREVOUT
Precedence: list


Good morning Paul, welcome back, and the list,


For the most part I am reluctant to add Turing-completeness due to the Prin=
ciple of Least Power.

We saw this play out on the web browser technology.
A full Turing-complete language was included fairly early in a popular HTML=
 implementation, which everyone else then copied.
In the beginning, it had very loose boundaries, and protections against thi=
ngs like cross-site scripting did not exist.
Eventually, W3C cracked down and modern JavaScript is now a lot more sandbo=
xed than at the beginning --- restricting its power.
In addition, for things like "change the color of this bit when the mouse h=
overs it", which used to be implemented in JavaScript, were moved to CSS, a=
 non-Turing-complete language.

The Principle of Least Power is that we should strive to use the language w=
ith *only what we need*, and naught else.

So I think for the most part that Turing-completeness is dangerous.
There may be things, other than Drivechain, that you might object to enabli=
ng in Bitcoin, and if those things can be implemented in a Turing-complete =
language, then they are likely implementable in recursive covenants.

That the web *started* with a powerful language that was later restricted i=
s fine for the web.
After all, the main use of the web is showing videos of attractive female h=
umans, and cute cats.
(WARNING: WHEN I TAKE OVER THE WORLD, I WILL TILE IT WITH CUTE CAT PICTURES=
.)
(Note: I am not an AI that seeks to take over the world.)
But Bitcoin protects money, which I think is more important, as it can be t=
raded not only for videos of attractive female humans, and cute cats, but o=
ther, lesser things as well.
So I believe some reticence towards recursive covenants, and other things i=
t may enable, is warranted,

Principle of Least Power exists, though admittedly, this principle was deve=
loped for the web.
The web is a server-client protocol, but Bitcoin is peer-to-peer, so it see=
ms certainly possible that Principle of Least Power does not apply to Bitco=
in.
As I understand it, however, the Principle of Least Power exists *precisely=
* because increased power often lets third parties do more than what was ex=
pected, including things that might damage the interests of the people who =
allowed the increased power to exist, or things that might damage the inter=
ests of *everyone*.

One can point out as well, that despite the problems that JavaScript introd=
uced, it also introduced GMail and the now-rich Web ecosystem.

Perhaps one might liken recursive covenants to the box that was opened by P=
andora.
Once opened, what is released cannot be put back.
Yet perhaps at the bottom of this box, is Hope?



Also: Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both no and yes.

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj