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
|
Return-Path: <darosior@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8B50C002D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 25 Apr 2022 13:35:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B543C404DD
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 25 Apr 2022 13:35:53 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 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,
SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com
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 lFsYfUvWm9qM
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 25 Apr 2022 13:35:53 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-4027.protonmail.ch (mail-4027.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.27])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C81F84045C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 25 Apr 2022 13:35:52 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 13:35:48 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail2; t=1650893750;
bh=/t8yBI6wCjCfLwD1APnBgaqsrD+RoiwvmVCvgf1ptzY=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:
References:Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:
Feedback-ID:Message-ID;
b=kYgpel7ccLzA1E6sHUbrq9tcepY977rqXmsWRhk47+5E8G3yYEgDCmPj+aVtDGTQ3
GtWhjFXM49WOCMoLW6bNTfXIQincke6Kjb+VU5Xukx9p/J5u/YpjmxVdndP8VIgkDj
pi6Vo/ug5tb1Cdzg74ZuelpM8L1lBg6sUuUnpGZQIU1EED6rBg37SfI2g+WNZI3wO8
wyzVniMMi7bk04w0sv/nuyXlguqK6UWcyvcNCXhE94Qq5EPtSiHJnSU/VrkPlTQKD5
nfmzSCvcxYmPUeaxVBIOnoHgznvGiflfFt9VKGrVFxA8tDXRn0fj4cbP528TLakyWp
6xr9EkczOYQPg==
To: Richard Myers <remyers@yakshaver.org>
From: darosior <darosior@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: darosior <darosior@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <vUv4gRXGegam5vWJosPS7rCNBOnH-B2hCok5QYXfwdpLme_cg7tAXoKvH3AU3lKE-BZ-IIq4hvtGnqytZitdS43kgAFwSQJvLPaO2tRwqEA=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <edZpe6R4qRm7fk8l49O6QkNBI-ViHKR3IozFUt6IuHxujshBRWoitjaOJJy_fk9njEG4woUdOPeKY8Vy87G22KSrOr2A7XHkYh-YSbzQiNs=@yakshaver.org>
References: <p3P0m2_aNXd-4oYhFjCKJyI8zQXahmZed6bv7lnj9M9HbP9gMqMtJr-pP7XRAPs-rn_fJuGu1cv9ero5i8f0cvyZrMXYPzPx17CxJ2ZSvRk=@protonmail.com>
<edZpe6R4qRm7fk8l49O6QkNBI-ViHKR3IozFUt6IuHxujshBRWoitjaOJJy_fk9njEG4woUdOPeKY8Vy87G22KSrOr2A7XHkYh-YSbzQiNs=@yakshaver.org>
Feedback-ID: 7060259:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 13:37:25 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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 13:35:54 -0000
Hi Richard,
> Sounds good to me. Although from an activation perspective it may not be =
either/or, both proposals do
compete for scarce reviewer time
Yes, of course. Let's say i was more interested in knowing if people who op=
pose CTV would oppose
SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT too. I think talking about activation of anything at thi=
s point is premature.
> For someone not as versed in CTV, why is it necessary that ANYONECANPAY b=
e optional to emulate CTV? Is there
a write-up that explains how APO-AS w/out ANYONECANPAY approximates CTV?
I'm not aware of any specific to CTV. It's just that the fields covered in =
the CTV hash are very close to what
ANYPREVOUT_ANYSCRIPT's signature hash covers [0]. The two things that CTV c=
ommits to that APO_AS does not are
the number of inputs and the hash of the inputs' sequences [1].
Not committing to the number of inputs and other inputs' data is today's be=
haviour of ANYONECANPAY that can
be combined with other signature hash types [1]. Thus APO_AS makes ACP mand=
atory, and to emulate CTV
completely it should be optional.
Antoine
[0] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0119.mediawiki#Detailed=
_Specification
[1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0118.mediawiki#signatur=
e-message
[2] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/10a626a1d6776447525f50d3e1a97b3=
c5bbad7d6/src/script/interpreter.cpp#L1327, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitc=
oin/blob/10a626a1d6776447525f50d3e1a97b3c5bbad7d6/src/script/interpreter.cp=
p#L1517-L1522
------- Original Message -------
Le dimanche 24 avril 2022 =C3=A0 10:41 PM, Richard Myers <remyers@yakshaver=
.org> a =C3=A9crit :
> Hi darosior,
>
> Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.
>
> > I would like to know people's sentiment about doing (a very slightly tw=
eaked version of) BIP118 in place of
> > (or before doing) BIP119.
>
>
> Sounds good to me. Although from an activation perspective it may not be =
either/or, both proposals do compete for scarce reviewer time so their orde=
ring will necessarily be driven by reviewer's priorities. My priority is el=
too which is why I focus on BIP-118.
>
> > SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUTANYSCRIPT, if its "ANYONECANPAY" behaviour is made op=
tional [0], can emulate CTV just fine.
>
>
> For someone not as versed in CTV, why is it necessary that ANYONECANPAY b=
e optional to emulate CTV? Is there a write-up that explains how APO-AS w/o=
ut ANYONECANPAY approximates CTV?
>
> In the case of eltoo commit txs, we use bring-your-own-fee (BYOF) to late=
-bind fees; that means ANYONECANPAY will always be paired with APO-AS for e=
ltoo. Settlement txs in eltoo use just APO and do not necessarily need to b=
e paired with ANYONECANPAY.
>
> I would guess making ANYONECANPAY the default for APO-AS was a way to squ=
eeze in one more sighash flag. Perhaps there's another way to do it?
>
> Including SIGHASH_GROUP with APO for eltoo is also tempting. Specifically=
so the counter-party who commits a settlement tx can use for fees their se=
ttled to_self balance. How to rejigger the sighash flags to accommodate bot=
h APO and GROUP may be worth some discussion.
>
> The BIP-118 proposal will certainly benefit from having input from review=
ers looking at other protocols than eltoo.
>
> -- Richard
|
