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
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12D0DC002D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 25 Apr 2022 05:12:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE1A040181
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 25 Apr 2022 05:12:16 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, 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: 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 3QzdMh_QRxFp
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 25 Apr 2022 05:12:15 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-4325.protonmail.ch (mail-4325.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.25])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1773B40022
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 25 Apr 2022 05:12:14 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 05:12:10 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail; t=1650863532;
bh=oWG8cUipybjLURG+4iyuibMLUdW5JNXoffkgBGfHFn4=;
h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:
Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID:
Message-ID;
b=S8oGTdKeTo+aUGEBmhYQIY1PRJ0e3EGdRaFEnYSMS5/futQhBI1Yyjm5DVhwhozg0
F2lC4498czKXGosHtDfS12XqQ3UiPEKYxLfb9TLiW6Y4lPskbG7zs/ikQWCtX1FTQL
/tQkHsedKj7RqC5aq7u0SbOUnI9hn/Ns3XXJ4nlK5KCHWPIeeUGEbEjmdhqFfWK/rG
umQ/uFKaVJmbccD9cJRSmizSSllqt/cOK1P0vzyTsvxuJG8/d+ElDc/zt4X4xYngZx
t07P7O6HcgsAyqZZ0hPGIRTXzsOm96TyeOajEGjYn/A8a5wUwCn1SU0/7rt3JqOXSQ
QifSgAXMriwHw==
To: "David A. Harding" <dave@dtrt.org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <UWxdkhOFe4dSFiV8z5uYiAySZSj-YDfH6vG3nasOSrqiZg9W1gDfmNc1MbSNTtJV6fr2j_Ch9AkpbpJWflY8cUfsBT08B3XXYVht8zptF_4=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <64a34b4d46461da322be51b53ec2eb01@dtrt.org>
References: <64a34b4d46461da322be51b53ec2eb01@dtrt.org>
Feedback-ID: 2872618:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Automatically reverting ("transitory") soft forks,
e.g. 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 05:12:17 -0000
Good morning Dave, et al.,
I have not read through *all* the mail on this thread, but have read a fair=
amount of it.
I think the main argument *for* this particular idea is that "it allows the=
use of real-world non-toy funds to prove that this feature is something ac=
tual users demand".
An idea that has been percolating in my various computation systems is to u=
se Smart Contracts Unchained to implement a variant of the Microcode idea I=
put forth some months ago.
Briefly, define a set of "more detailed" opcodes that would allow any gener=
al computation to be performed.
This is the micro-opcode instruction set.
Then, when a new opcode or behavior is proposed for Bitcoin SCRIPT, create =
a new mapping from Bitcoin SCRIPT opcodes (including the new opcodes / beha=
vior) to the micro-opcodes.
This is a microcode.
Then use Smart Contracts Unchained.
This means that we commit to the microcode, plus the SCRIPT that uses the m=
icrocode, and instead of sending funds to a new version of the Bitcoin SCRI=
PT that uses the new opcode(s), send to a "(n-of-n of users) or (1-of-users=
and (k-of-n of federation))".
This is no worse security-wise than using a federated sidechain, without re=
quiring a complete sidechain implementation, and allows the same code (the =
micro-opcode interpreter) to be reused across all ideas.
It may even be worthwhile to include the micro-opcode interpreter into Bitc=
oin Core, so that the mechanics of merging in a new opcode, that was protot=
yped via this mechanism, is easier.
The federation only needs to interpret the micro-opcode instruction set; it=
simply translates the (modified) Bitcoin SCRIPT opcodes to the correspondi=
ng micro-opcodes and runs that, possibly with reasonable limits on executio=
n time.
Users are not required to trust a particular fixed set of k-of-n federation=
, but may choose any k-of-n they believe is trustworthy.
This idea does not require consensus at any point in time.
It allows "real" funds to be used, thus demonstrating real demand for the s=
upposed innovation.
The problem is the effective erosion of security to depending on k-of-n of =
a federation.
Presumably, proponents of a new opcode or feature would run a micro-opcode =
interpreter faithfully, so that users have a positive experience with their=
new opcode, and would carefully monitor and vet the micro-opcode interpret=
ers run by other supposed proponents, on the assumption that a sub-goal of =
such proponents would be to encourage use of the new opcode / feature.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
