1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
|
Return-Path: <alicexbt@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B8F2C0037
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 2 Jan 2024 16:43:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0719380BE4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 2 Jan 2024 16:43:45 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 0719380BE4
Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org;
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com header.i=@protonmail.com
header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=protonmail3 header.b=wlug1YVE
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001,
SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id hC3ih2QxFFMd
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 2 Jan 2024 16:43:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-40137.protonmail.ch (mail-40137.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.137])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AD2880BBF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 2 Jan 2024 16:43:43 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 2AD2880BBF
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail3; t=1704213821; x=1704473021;
bh=WZvnwLwOXSJ97gfsm2zKF7GqEdAVF8jVnSxaYPxo4Jc=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:
Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID:
Message-ID:BIMI-Selector;
b=wlug1YVE8WnOpZbIG4sMLkkmXZH7SHFpxprxkbrYSwjYImWilkv7Dlz+kiTLCJpm1
ruSy5GvguRefi8NuJpqRHd5rGiFpdhslyZt6sDfUR88R+lkBDRphr8gQn1mCSxh9Ux
TyAFbHfLIYVhGFPDT7zvFCtupl1RKWhHbJ6f+3JVDrvi9Di0oc+NzG42ectmd6W9kk
bsbtUvImTgEEsqhzACbIy8XWiHKyTw7HJy0r0w9JKnALXYj1i++ISQkPgrmgIc2f33
lqgnLtjv+G6Y3aaJo9neDYBP8C9mSe35QwWJ6xLGYs17zDUQ/mYK4coAuypOD/7Jph
PO/F+MUqK1Ghw==
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2024 16:43:22 +0000
To: Michael Folkson <michaelfolkson@protonmail.com>
From: alicexbt <alicexbt@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <ISvX58I2-K-suhB33yY9A-zeW7xEFpF83jUgYClJH-nu469Gqa4V-YoikUfSb4BPVdFEHJh_JpH7b6OGPZdPQm_HI9_LtKRd_6vno0HdLRI=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <Zzpp9sp69_QmkUre4YUawBxOLECIfHHUf_OoD8UXXZ8Xwtmr5R62_rlGV2iwLivkST-vWusc0X9horY9qHEHKP2g4GR2ppCAuIE57VANUP0=@protonmail.com>
References: <39ecOLU7GJPGc0zWZmGuaj-a4ANySfoRjwxoUoxP480kfRRc_fsPl9MvZDC-0vSfrO3jYraHVUyxWpcg7AFHRJkEJUERYdHZlzimOwql1j0=@protonmail.com>
<2e113332-2cfd-73ec-0368-136728ceb31a@dashjr.org>
<Tp6LkEd_YZUe-0sI-EXRmGTaq4Om2RSKIOUsXS0GIsYW5z_MFnicWPz2hB1KZYJ1mihv0KrJT8DmnuDr1RCcIpFM9jCOy82BvRJySkO7Im8=@protonmail.com>
<fcOFuPPZB9Cn6nuIkAcvbECmYqISZQ-5O2hQGli-F8FOK68etbaGNlrMT4OuPSBFI9VjaBe_izZEgezy8KZbjeBIaO_QPNfwrF61IorSP44=@protonmail.com>
<ZY/PYiO2Yg3FNiYV@erisian.com.au>
<CAJowKg+VR5sYkxOtfeMeaW_ZiU8=6YC_T-21jSBk9VuFO1739g@mail.gmail.com>
<JjjvS5JDzMsm_gr9M1li4rhxJbQroFXfC8CvIYkHsncrYTB9K723Ds68KnPPm7rKyDgvVdMcUoeg8QQgRKlPsaOSvp5vc6OjB_-TiQZ5iWE=@protonmail.com>
<CAJowKg+CQWiHxcJLPE7bHbfwGo3WGQSqBNAQU-aEyCJH8YGO3w@mail.gmail.com>
<Zzpp9sp69_QmkUre4YUawBxOLECIfHHUf_OoD8UXXZ8Xwtmr5R62_rlGV2iwLivkST-vWusc0X9horY9qHEHKP2g4GR2ppCAuIE57VANUP0=@protonmail.com>
Feedback-ID: 40602938:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 03 Jan 2024 16:20:16 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Swift Activation - CTV
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, 02 Jan 2024 16:43:45 -0000
> Your knowledge is incorrect. As far as I know in the getting on for 2 yea=
rs since the first CTV activation talk/attempt literally no one has built o=
ut a CTV use case and demonstrated it on signet with the possible exception=
of James O'Beirne's OP_VAULT which requires other new opcodes in addition =
to CTV.=20
This is not true.
https://github.com/AdamISZ/pathcoin-poc
/dev/fd0
floppy disk guy
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
On Tuesday, January 2nd, 2024 at 1:52 PM, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev <=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> In the interests of time I'll just pick two to respond to but I don't agr=
ee with any of your points.
>=20
> > Covenants allow trustless utxos sharing and also are needed for vaultin=
g. The numerous use cases are documented, built out and on signet to my kno=
wledge. Check out=C2=A0utxos.org=C2=A0for a good list
>=20
> Your knowledge is incorrect. As far as I know in the getting on for 2 yea=
rs since the first CTV activation talk/attempt literally no one has built o=
ut a CTV use case and demonstrated it on signet with the possible exception=
of James O'Beirne's OP_VAULT which requires other new opcodes in addition =
to CTV. I wish this wasn't the case. It is pitiful that we have these indiv=
iduals (such as yourself) that are so convinced CTV should be activated but=
refuse to address any concerns raised by others and refuse to work on any =
of the speculated use cases, instead choosing to just beat the activation d=
rum over and over again.
>=20
> >=C2=A04. "Best tool for the job" is not the bar. "Safe for all" and "use=
ful for some" is the bar. Like any opcodes or tech Bitcoin has deployed in =
the past. Changing the bar is not up for discussion.
>=20
> If you want to avoid a chain split with an activation attempt (it is poss=
ible you don't care but if you do) you have to address concerns others have=
with a particular proposal. Just because Satoshi was able to make whatever=
changes he liked in the early days of Bitcoin's history and smaller groups=
of contributors then were able to activate changes without much scrutiny (=
Bitcoin was worth a fraction of what it is today and was only supporting a =
tiny ecosystem back then) doesn't mean we can do the same today. Appointing=
Erik as the new Satoshi who can make whatever changes he likes, who define=
s the bar with ultimate certainty and decides what is and what isn't up for=
discussion also isn't a viable option.
>=20
> Thanks
> Michael
>=20
> --
> Michael Folkson
> Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com
> GPG: A2CF5D71603C92010659818D2A75D601B23FEE0F
>=20
>=20
> Learn about Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/@portofbitcoin
>=20
>=20
> On Monday, 1 January 2024 at 17:11, Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com> wrote:
>=20
>=20
> > 1. Claiming that something that isn't activated (unusable) isn't used a=
s a non-argument
> > 2. Talking about activation methods is orthogonal. Bip8 is fine.
> >=20
> > 3. Covenants allow trustless utxos sharing and also are needed for vaul=
ting. The numerous use cases are documented, built out and on signet to my =
knowledge. Check out utxos.org for a good list
> >=20
> > 3. No need to discuss wild extremes that are unrelated to ctvs well doc=
umented utility. Plus multi-sig allows governments to encumber (or accident=
ally ruin) destination addresses just like covenants.
> >=20
> > 4. "Best tool for the job" is not the bar. "Safe for all" and "useful f=
or some" is the bar. Like any opcodes or tech Bitcoin has deployed in the p=
ast. Changing the bar is not up for discussion.
> >=20
> >=20
> > CTV has already been demonstrated "useful for some". The question that =
needs to be answered is whether there are any specific objections to safety=
.
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > On Mon, Jan 1, 2024, 11:37 AM Michael Folkson <michaelfolkson@protonmai=
l.com> wrote:
> >=20
> > > Hi Erik
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > > So what exactly are the risks of CTV over multi-sig?
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > It is a strange comparison. Multisig is active onchain and is being u=
sed today for all sorts of things including Lightning and setups that addre=
ss risk of single key loss or malicious signing. When discussing risks of C=
TV there are all sorts of risks that don't apply to multisig. These include=
that it is never used for any of its speculated use cases (multisig is bei=
ng used today), other proposals end up being used instead of it (I'm not su=
re there were or are competing proposals so that multisig stops being used,=
MuSig2 maybe?), chain split risks with activation if there isn't consensus=
to activate it etc. Plus usage of complex (non covenant) scripts that full=
y utilize Taproot trees is still low today. Going straight to covenants (im=
posing restrictions on where funds can be sent) and not bothering with impo=
sing all the restrictions you'd like on how funds can be spent in the first=
place seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse. Covenants don't=
ultimately solve the key management issue, they just move it from the pre =
spending phase to the post spending phase. So the benefits (although non-ze=
ro) aren't as obvious as some of the covenant advocates are suggesting. And=
although CTV is a limited covenant (some argue too limited) covenants take=
n to wild extremes could create all sorts of second order effects where fun=
ds can't be spent because of complex combinations of covenants. Even the st=
rongest CTV proponent seems to suggest that the introduction of covenants w=
ouldn't end with CTV.
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > The way to reduce implementation risk for a use case of a particular =
proposal is to build out that use case and see if CTV is the best tool for =
the job. Repeatedly trying to activate CTV when there isn't consensus for i=
t to be activated does not reduce that implementation risk in any way, shap=
e or form.
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > Thanks
> > > Michael
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > --
> > > Michael Folkson
> > > Email: michaelfolkson at protonmail.com
> > > GPG: A2CF5D71603C92010659818D2A75D601B23FEE0F
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > Learn about Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/@portofbitcoin
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > On Saturday, 30 December 2023 at 08:59, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev=
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > > So what exactly are the risks of CTV over multi-sig?
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > >
|