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
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EEAAC002D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 25 Apr 2022 10:01:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16A0D408CF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 25 Apr 2022 10:01:41 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.601 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,
FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id tFhIuj_Wdmws
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 25 Apr 2022 10:01:39 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-4324.protonmail.ch (mail-4324.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.24])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CC85408C9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 25 Apr 2022 10:01:39 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 10:01:28 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail; t=1650880896;
bh=NspuECIZsrLryH1e2zygxsb3c55jliU7AUjz7Rw8idU=;
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=WA3WRAOnxvelEu2KIMcTloFRKTwU0vBw1F6yMaFRfSwLqO1a02VFeAiFmugWQVjbT
ZkwLCIpt3bpkFaNhSvantbbLopDHWqg0NTxZ1PgVFwWt5L5qqBcAROlFDG1g3sBM8e
DX2tdQaq12qqI4xGiWF/dYPadPewsV8jZhN5KCqQK6FXC39907hEg2JO+Oh3v9v+sj
J5f0YEnCX/+2yTxrWEhbjCr4LmPgsmfQBdLK41Cs24K8QJfk+aXb9djQ9aA8Jwuioq
ReJfdElTYwuOsJgnj94GvUp06HhIhzFQcoI4LWpe28K2E5DotS7scqlBgdnmnJ89Rd
hcf1sTWsSgs9w==
To: Zac Greenwood <zachgrw@gmail.com>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <ID4VQ7kbkdRwf38kiXtxuhanlkFy7ggmL26NlK_t4h9KdAzrIMFXGdgwsGxIixQXhkdyeaSupmVEVDp14aQPwShHm1AryWFiYAkZO5Thb4k=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJ4-pEB1zWxWapt3qit=X1p3WuSSn2_K=rygDp8JzpS7GimgMg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <RyYBRY3MJP_0b2YkCEUFBdP8u1A_cGSEEkDbzKK9k-rkINZrBaOL70L96iHR11bJhmkhAzuN6uZ1X8PQgz2wa8Us3-2OpNa4RbhSSprw_WE=@protonmail.com>
<CALeFGL1=4PrA_ziTsoS9sUjGjfLr54AiMfM99uDV-Bau5Ab_eQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJ4-pEADrHf_YR5ZBfJW+eefKrp1iEj4wAi72UrwRSi9gaVP+w@mail.gmail.com>
<B037C028-EB25-4197-A0F1-48838D1AD30F@petertodd.org>
<tBEO_7gKqAlgiRpjC1OCLMBcLddK0ffNlbdU65VhXnXqZQiDCTDNOw8sfTXqNXZxVA8wA0uodTLvptt7Iy5O3D_6hkiVVfLegOrg9C1Snkg=@protonmail.com>
<CAJ4-pEB1zWxWapt3qit=X1p3WuSSn2_K=rygDp8JzpS7GimgMg@mail.gmail.com>
Feedback-ID: 2872618:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] User Resisted Soft Fork for 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 10:01:41 -0000
Good morning Zac,
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 at 07:36, ZmnSCPxj <zmnscpxj@protonmail.com> wrote
>
> > CTV *can* benefit layer 2 users, which is why I switched from vaguely a=
pathetic to CTV, to vaguely supportive of it.
>
>
> Other proposals exist that also benefit L2 solutions. What makes you supp=
ort CTV specifically?
It is simple to implement, and a pure `OP_CTV` SCRIPT on a P2WSH / P2SH is =
only 32 bytes + change on the output and 32 bytes + change on the input/wit=
ness, compared to signature-based schemes which require at least 32 bytes +=
change on the output and 64 bytes + change on the witness ***IF*** they us=
e the Taproot format (and since we currently gate the Taproot format behind=
actual Taproot usages, any special SCRIPT that uses Taproot-format signatu=
res would need at least the 33-byte internal pubkey revelation; if we settl=
e with the old signature format, then that is 73 bytes for the signature).
To my knowledge as well, hashes (like `OP_CTV` uses) are CPU-cheaper (and m=
emory-cheaper?) than even highly-optimized `libsecp256k1` signature validat=
ion, and (to my knowledge) you cannot use batch validation for SCRIPT-based=
signature checks.
It definitely does not enable recursive covenants, which I think deserve mo=
re general research and thinking before we enable recursive covenants.
Conceptually, I see `OP_CTV` as the "AND" to the "OR" of MAST.
In both cases, you have a hash-based tree, but in `OP_CTV` you want *all* t=
hese pre-agreed cases, while in MAST you want *one* of these pre-agreed cas=
es.
Which is not to say that other proposals do not benefit L2 solutions *more*=
(`SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT` when please?), but other proposals are signature-bas=
ed and would be larger in this niche.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
