path: root/6d/f092d788cc6a972a87ca6636e0484eac9e70f3

Return-Path: <nadav@shesek.info>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2556FC002D
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:58:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11E1A40217
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:58:01 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.278
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1,
 HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD=1.975,
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001]
 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral
 reason="invalid (public key: not available)" header.d=shesek.info
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 prfmpiTVQAVl
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:58:00 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-il1-x131.google.com (mail-il1-x131.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::131])
 by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 066744017A
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:57:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-il1-x131.google.com with SMTP id e1so9761798ile.2
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 25 Apr 2022 09:57:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shesek.info; s=shesek;
 h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
 bh=BsZD/jlDaKRHUKCVkEHta9vDTx5uS9moKOA28YadGSo=;
 b=pHfn6SjZodqe1rm8GKe+jCp6JCHo18b+LsV8HdkdxxH+lF9PQOBTpDPsTQD0Cx1pHY
 H4lrM4LuHBi+IoZVbjqhTex7AAo2ZedJJqcLeTHUssED+o41KZDc1Sa6k5TZEVgjsDja
 4zmPMnq5T1rDM6+Aqn8Xv5LHNNOaZeo3t6R24=
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=BsZD/jlDaKRHUKCVkEHta9vDTx5uS9moKOA28YadGSo=;
 b=dtiQTYzcyMZ11xMSvSlOTum4utCy6ZkHdxUyfmWu4Wl3AlSvhr80obb7Lkqe9gUzht
 fiKR+L6/1ue6vrKnQ98zq23rcPI7mBLo7edRYEYa0qr8Jww1A73Raq1PS9SNsAeFvjCD
 XiCpgNg8Uu+btPPe1gOqqCMRcpUNNvJAjrYuXcYYhhDXekytjUSUh39v7UVpSh9pQpSh
 X12AYSsVd7STGA75ONLCVzNA20PrnngHriwC8BY2HOjtlqzCdDPJvzgShFErfryavjxe
 6dLoCUTy3nrUAhh8O/S/kYTq7rQxg4B4hMi8w2ajOs8gq7E4xNT+IBRN03UJnHYn7atf
 +nOg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530gogAMPIbfj/QbHuaNFZqw9N8mOUyjHxCRRR+EMuLwu/2UtQ3H
 /58bgLdwYkx5+YAfnrL0nX5DH9QWxkMMH/IJ/e7LiWHvCQMSaL1V
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxP/myTMBOKrEd8d7ouUeSoX3fX+DiHRq8HquuqKK2pv8BaIkzhEkObpNESlH3wFTQM1lbdZ1T59eRC3epixWk=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:b305:0:b0:2c8:267b:7e25 with SMTP id
 p5-20020a92b305000000b002c8267b7e25mr7567929ilh.312.1650905879011; Mon, 25
 Apr 2022 09:57:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <p3P0m2_aNXd-4oYhFjCKJyI8zQXahmZed6bv7lnj9M9HbP9gMqMtJr-pP7XRAPs-rn_fJuGu1cv9ero5i8f0cvyZrMXYPzPx17CxJ2ZSvRk=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <p3P0m2_aNXd-4oYhFjCKJyI8zQXahmZed6bv7lnj9M9HbP9gMqMtJr-pP7XRAPs-rn_fJuGu1cv9ero5i8f0cvyZrMXYPzPx17CxJ2ZSvRk=@protonmail.com>
From: Nadav Ivgi <nadav@shesek.info>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 19:57:48 +0300
Message-ID: <CAGXD5f3VrYQTXHoWEoj6bFsXKZ6C_FHXm8_FNuJZUm_yKpKfcg@mail.gmail.com>
To: darosior <darosior@protonmail.com>, 
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000079f7f205dd7d7a01"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:59:24 +0000
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 <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: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:58:01 -0000

--00000000000079f7f205dd7d7a01
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

darosior via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> i doubt CTV is necessary nor sufficient for this

I would be interested to hear more on this.

Is it not necessary because you can exchange and store pre-signed
transactions instead?

What purpose is it not sufficient for? There are some vault designs out
there that are able to achieve interesting properties with CTV, like James
O'Beirne's simple-ctv-vault:

https://github.com/jamesob/simple-ctv-vault
(the basic design expressed in Minsc:
https://min.sc/nextc/#gist=001cf1fcb0e24ca9f3614c4db9bfe57d:4)

On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 2:23 PM darosior 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.
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--00000000000079f7f205dd7d7a01
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><span class=3D"gmail-im"><div dir=3D"ltr">darosior vi=
a bitcoin-dev wrote:</div></span>&gt; <span class=3D"gmail-im">i doubt CTV =
is necessary nor sufficient for this</span></div><div><span class=3D"gmail-=
im"><br></span></div><div><span class=3D"gmail-im">I would be interested to=
 hear more on this.</span></div><div><span class=3D"gmail-im"><br></span></=
div><div><span class=3D"gmail-im">Is it not necessary because you can excha=
nge and store pre-signed transactions instead?<br></span></div><div><span c=
lass=3D"gmail-im"><br></span></div><div><span class=3D"gmail-im">What purpo=
se is it not <span class=3D"gmail-im">sufficient for? There are some vault =
designs out there that are able to achieve interesting properties with CTV,=
 like James O&#39;Beirne&#39;s simple-ctv-vault:<br></span></span></div><di=
v><span class=3D"gmail-im"><span class=3D"gmail-im"><br></span></span></div=
><div><span class=3D"gmail-im"><span class=3D"gmail-im"><a href=3D"https://=
github.com/jamesob/simple-ctv-vault">https://github.com/jamesob/simple-ctv-=
vault</a></span></span></div><div><span class=3D"gmail-im"><span class=3D"g=
mail-im">(the basic design expressed in Minsc: <a href=3D"https://min.sc/ne=
xtc/#gist=3D001cf1fcb0e24ca9f3614c4db9bfe57d:4">https://min.sc/nextc/#gist=
=3D001cf1fcb0e24ca9f3614c4db9bfe57d:4</a>)</span></span></div></div><br><di=
v class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Fri, Apr 2=
2, 2022 at 2:23 PM darosior via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-d=
ev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;=
 wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px =
0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">I would =
like to know people&#39;s sentiment about doing (a very slightly tweaked ve=
rsion of) BIP118 in place of<br>
(or before doing) BIP119.<br>
<br>
SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT and its precedent iterations have been discussed for ove=
r 6 years. It presents proven and<br>
implemented usecases, that are demanded and (please someone correct me if i=
&#39;m wrong) more widely accepted than<br>
CTV&#39;s.<br>
<br>
SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUTANYSCRIPT, if its &quot;ANYONECANPAY&quot; behaviour is m=
ade optional [0], can emulate CTV just fine.<br>
Sure then you can&#39;t have bare or Segwit v0 CTV, and it&#39;s a bit more=
 expensive to use. But we can consider CTV<br>
an optimization of APO-AS covenants.<br>
<br>
CTV advocates have been presenting vaults as the flagship usecase. Although=
 as someone who&#39;ve been trying to<br>
implement practical vaults for the past 2 years i doubt CTV is necessary no=
r sufficient for this (but still<br>
useful!), using APO-AS covers it. And it&#39;s not a couple dozen more virt=
ual bytes that are going to matter for<br>
a potential vault user.<br>
<br>
If after some time all of us who are currently dubious about CTV&#39;s stat=
ed usecases are proven wrong by onchain<br>
usage of a less efficient construction to achieve the same goal, we could r=
oll-out CTV as an optimization.=C2=A0 In<br>
the meantime others will have been able to deploy new applications leveragi=
ng ANYPREVOUT (Eltoo, blind<br>
statechains, etc..[1]).<br>
<br>
<br>
Given the interest in, and demand for, both simple covenants and better off=
chain protocols it seems to me that<br>
BIP118 is a soft fork candidate that could benefit more (if not most of) Bi=
tcoin users.<br>
Actually i&#39;d also be interested in knowing if people would oppose the A=
PO-AS part of BIP118, since it enables<br>
CTV&#39;s features, for the same reason they&#39;d oppose BIP119.<br>
<br>
<br>
[0] That is, to not commit to the other inputs of the transaction (via `sha=
_sequences` and maybe also<br>
`sha_amounts`). Cf <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/b=
ip-0118.mediawiki#signature-message" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">h=
ttps://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0118.mediawiki#signature-mes=
sage</a>.<br>
<br>
[1] <a href=3D"https://anyprevout.xyz/" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank=
">https://anyprevout.xyz/</a> &quot;Use Cases&quot; section<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>

--00000000000079f7f205dd7d7a01--