Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46DE0C000B for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 08:53:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32B2B4012A for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 08:53:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.652 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.652 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no 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 w5mJaHggwnCQ for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 08:53:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from gandalf.ozlabs.org (mail.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2404:9400:2221:ea00::3]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BEDE4000B for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 08:53:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by gandalf.ozlabs.org (Postfix, from userid 1011) id 4JyZSg460xz4xmx; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 19:46:27 +1100 (AEDT) From: Rusty Russell To: Jeremy Rubin , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion In-Reply-To: References: <87leymuiu8.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 19:15:10 +1030 Message-ID: <87k0dwr015.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] TXHASH + CHECKSIGFROMSTACKVERIFY in lieu of CTV and ANYPREVOUT X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 08:53:03 -0000 Jeremy Rubin writes: > Rusty, > > Note that this sort of design introduces recursive covenants similarly to > how I described above. > > Whether that is an issue or not precluding this sort of design or not, I > defer to others. Good point! But I think it's a distinction without meaning: AFAICT iterative covenants are possible with OP_CTV and just as powerful, though technically finite. I can constrain the next 100M spends, for example: if I insist on those each having incrementing nLocktime, that's effectively forever. Thanks! Rusty.