Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2022 08:47:14 +0100 (CET)
From: Prayank <prayank@tutanota.de>
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <MwozrvU--3-2@tutanota.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
 boundary="----=_Part_321589_1387632195.1645861634979"
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Recursive covenant opposition,
 or the absence thereof,
 was Re: TXHASH + CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY in lieu of CTV and ANYPREVOUT
Precedence: list

------=_Part_321589_1387632195.1645861634979
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Good morning ZmnSCPxj,

> Of course, I know of no such technique, but given that a technique (Drivechains) which before would have required its own consensus change, turns out to be implementable inside recursive covenants, then I wonder if there are other things that would have required their own consensus change that are now *also* implementable purely in recursive covenants.


Agree. I would be interested to know what is NOT possible once we have recursive covenants.

> if there is *now* consensus that Drivechains are not bad, go ahead, add recursive covenants (but please can we add `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` and `OP_CTV` first?)


Agree and I think everything can be done in separate soft forks.


-- 
Prayank

A3B1 E430 2298 178F

------=_Part_321589_1387632195.1645861634979
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv=3D"content-type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3DUTF-8=
">
  </head>
  <body>
<div>Good morning ZmnSCPxj,<br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=
=3D"auto">&gt; Of course, I know of no such technique, but given that a tec=
hnique (Drivechains) which before would have required its own consensus cha=
nge, turns out to be implementable inside recursive covenants, then I wonde=
r if there are other things that would have required their own consensus ch=
ange that are now *also* implementable purely in recursive covenants.<br></=
div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"aut=
o">Agree. I would be interested to know what is NOT possible once we have r=
ecursive covenants.<br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">=
&gt; if there is *now* consensus that Drivechains are not bad, go ahead, ad=
d recursive covenants (but please can we add `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` and `OP_CTV`=
 first?)<br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><=
div dir=3D"auto">Agree and I think everything can be done in separate soft =
forks.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div di=
r=3D"auto"><br></div><div><br></div><div>-- <br></div><div>Prayank<br></div=
><div><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">A3B1 E430 2298 178F<br></div>  </body>
</html>

------=_Part_321589_1387632195.1645861634979--