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
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
|
Return-Path: <fresheneesz@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FB92C002D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 27 Aug 2022 21:01:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72B9440935
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 27 Aug 2022 21:01:41 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 72B9440935
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org;
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com
header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=lvqoDCTo
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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,
HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 7lpZn8La0K4s
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 27 Aug 2022 21:01:38 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org 3DBF64090C
Received: from mail-vs1-xe32.google.com (mail-vs1-xe32.google.com
[IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e32])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DBF64090C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 27 Aug 2022 21:01:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe32.google.com with SMTP id m66so4838031vsm.12
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 27 Aug 2022 14:01:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112;
h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references
:mime-version:from:to:cc;
bh=JUcwP8ZA+XJ67iOPXN0YV/3x0jbJeoFMLg+RGTl6ZZc=;
b=lvqoDCTos3RxrDYrp73dSbccAvYS2uXhtNEWOjsMu/FoaIpZ5u4bIS9NRuIVVtXTlv
g4VnY4pu7hEIkMfEv/XMRpJ6Er9swZD2chViMmpPzlGjNU8IqjeztJSiGpNm50bWup0b
9HmHV+fhtBnefGi8wTqZ66LvqCtfY/sU9iH77l6gVnXNpkeigSMGF6ryAO4WPivYkRIF
eZNa8MzJwVlEmFGTTTd6L2VfEkmLyUFq2nyHf573PJm4yrAUM+bxf21MEf8UQtnNB8L3
Amppzq6Svra0JKzRUQKMcGlU1HzLGC4LyB6/L/4Vs4f2r1XeOKgoWADrH5iGwD21od5Q
mu1w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20210112;
h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references
:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc;
bh=JUcwP8ZA+XJ67iOPXN0YV/3x0jbJeoFMLg+RGTl6ZZc=;
b=KJG1QKF20zu0TgAwSoB53lhffoX8QFCbPQP4j8dsFaJlgVgDRHwH2C0LUaywKdXw+6
TrlzeVpd+G03Tetww5uYqMPdKHz//EDJjo+H3tOTJCzHUqc0xmCFl93aAxLPvSg2JlYe
On0gz7mgG3Xf0Kiyu9oo7bGgKqKQggDzMKlseVfK36ovkWFM4geOR3rQi6smpW5m2csO
7jYH1J4L5B64C/B4wGASkiG42KPFsp/66TzcizjT+ln+hhEXypS+0Vg3SACKHfNum6LR
VqhiEgPdNzvKsI4AaTWg/FOvD639bUISCG77Hn3MocjoyZebdAZhQaGSsbpVwkogdanF
qnuA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo1EDTyjGREowrGbrMgYonoJiAqVILXPo5MLLb7RdBcENQKUr5Id
wGZMT2/p3fJ86BPorfnDiE79BIlrToZkgf9UXzdm3tPywNKcWw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR7mUfiemd76a1IFLSXSd2d3qoV7LaM5w05yJb//gseBnWvUnNRQA4unPJODCpZC61OoRRICFhQ8XMJpCh//jEM=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:c8a:b0:390:232a:8f29 with SMTP id
f10-20020a0561020c8a00b00390232a8f29mr1581955vst.81.1661634096942; Sat, 27
Aug 2022 14:01:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALZpt+FhpZETHP8UpDGgw-Wg=m4Hxm8y9XZ9kXYgmt90_6Zt6w@mail.gmail.com>
<CAHUJnBDu+PNvER-FmpT8593vX-wAZ1oPWJjQaJ=d7Y4pso_Txw@mail.gmail.com>
<CALZpt+E4Ej3KJ4WqkUDTF3DRhPTbUT5mw2c_eHLuxH7w1BbWGg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAHUJnBB1wExgJhHUeU88ZMD28s6+9UT3Cfc43_UpK40hJwUFSg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAGpPWDbbZ7PEpr4iwYwBn+5QcjjCx8qmTZVB98i2Z=UwDfwaTQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CALZpt+HWzZdwMrtX=8rMpZ+e5dWcmbMeEx3jhTB_XnWz1n7RJQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALZpt+HWzZdwMrtX=8rMpZ+e5dWcmbMeEx3jhTB_XnWz1n7RJQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2022 16:01:21 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGpPWDY0WV0dzRx2mD7kd-48+wrF=BJBf=ZB5R6+owPrdHTp+w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Antoine Riard <antoine.riard@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000018557005e73f56b7"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 27 Aug 2022 21:07:38 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] On a new community process to specify covenants
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: Sat, 27 Aug 2022 21:01:42 -0000
--00000000000018557005e73f56b7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> I would like to note it's real work for the organizers in terms of time
and energy: finding a common date making consensus, an acceptable host
country (i.e respecting the travel policy of the widest...
I was actually not thinking one large central in-person meeting, but many
smaller decentralized in-person meetings where no one has to travel far.
The meetings can be used to foster communication that can then be
summarized and/or brought online and discussed with the larger group. Would
certainly make all those date/visa/etc issues a lot easier.
> I would be even cautious about something restrained like "group
consensus" in Bitcoin FOSS. At best, it's just a snapshot of people's
understanding of the technical issues in state X at time T
Fair enough. But I think part of the point here would be to use such a
snapshot as an indicator that helps convince others that a particular idea
has been discussed, thought through, and has actual well-reasoned support.
Whatever you call it, it would be a useful set of data points.
> I believe the covenant problem space might be solved in an evolutionary
way, layer by layer akin to how LN moves forward.
Definitely.
On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 3:15 PM Antoine Riard <antoine.riard@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Billy,
>
> Thanks for your interest in a covenant working group.
>
> > place for this kind of thing to happen. I also agree with Ryan Grant's
> > comment about in-person cut-through (ie cut through the BS and resolve
> > misunderstandings). Perhaps every 3 IRC meetings or so, an in-person
> meetup
> > can be organized in various locations to facilitate that kind of cut
> > through.
>
> I really appreciate in-person cut-through to resolve misunderstandings an=
d
> accelerate the information synchronization across the stakeholders of a
> problem space. However, I would like to note it's real work for the
> organizers in terms of time and energy: finding a common date making
> consensus, an acceptable host country (i.e respecting the travel policy o=
f
> the widest, e.g organizing Scaling in Israel in 2019 was an issue for som=
e
> passport holders), a standard meeting location, seeking event sponsors,
> communicating all those infos well ahead to ease everyone travels, ensuri=
ng
> coffees & foods suiting many different diets, collecting topics of
> discussions, etc. Further, even assuming travel support, it can still be =
a
> prohibitive cost for a lot of participants, e.g if you have to request
> months ahead to the host country authorities a dedicated visa for the
> opportunity. I did a bit of in-person meetings organizing in the past, I'=
m
> clearly not interested in doing it anymore, though it would be cool if
> someone would like to do it for covenants in the future.
>
> > I would imagine the phases the group could go through is:
> > 1. Define the phases (these phases). This list of 6 phases could be a
> > starting point, but its probably best to open the floor to whether this
> > feels like a reasonable approach and if more phases are needed or if so=
me
> > aren't.
> > 2. Define and prioritize the motivations (ie the various features and
> > functionality we want out of covenants, like the ones you listed). By
> > prioritize, I mostly mean figure out which motivations are most
> motivating
> > to people and rate them by strength of motivation (rather than a ranked
> > list).
> > 3. Define and prioritize the relevant constraints. These are things to
> > avoid in any covenant implementation. Constraints that have been brough=
t
> up
> > in the past are things like preventing the possibility of infinite
> covenant
> > recursion, full enumeration, preventing dynamic state, etc. By prioriti=
ze
> > here, it might be useful to categorize them into categories like "no
> > tolerance", "some tolerance", "no reservations". Eg it might turn out
> most
> > people don't have any tolerance for infinite recursion, but don't mind
> > non-full enumeration.
> > 4. Other criteria? These are other criteria we might want to evaluate
> > proposals according to. And some kind of way to prioritize them /
> evaluate
> > them against each other as trade offs.
> > 5. Evaluate the proposals based on motivations, constraints, and other
> > criteria. This phase shouldn't involve comparing them to each other.
> > 6. Produce a set of conclusions/opinions on which proposals are worth
> > pursuing further. This would be the phase where proposals are compared.
>
> Yes, I think overall a lot is making sense. Though it's good to keep
> things as loose and see how it evaluates with time and new information
> showing up.
>
> About 2., I think one more thing to define is the list of use-cases, I
> would abstract out features and functionality from use-cases. E.g, I thin=
k
> with the TLUV proposal, the taproot output editing feature enables both
> "dynamic-amount" vault and scaling payment pools.
>
> About 3., I think this is going to be the hard part. Collecting all the
> constraints and evaluating the risk tolerance of as-much-as-we-can
> community stakeholders in face of known and plausible risks. E.g, again
> with TLUV, I think it would make from now on the taproot internal pubkey
> and tree of alternative scripts a kind of "dynamic state".
>
> About 4. I've quickly come to mind as additional criterias economic
> simulations of any feature, privacy advantages, toolchain implementations
> complexity, evolvability and composability with future features.
>
> About 6. I agree I think it's good to withhold comparison further down in
> the pipe we can, even if there is I would say some criteria-learning
> heuristics by mirroring features against another.
>
> > Each phase would probably span over more than one meeting. I imagine ea=
ch
> > phase basically consisting of discussing each individual nominated item
> (ie
> > motivations, constraints, other criteria, or proposals) sequentially. T=
he
> > consensus reached at the end of each phase would be considered of cours=
e
> a
> > group consensus of those who participated, not a global consensus, not =
a
> > "bitcoin community consensus". After each phase, the results of that
> phase
> > would be published more widely to get broader community feedback. These
> > results would include what the major opinions are, what level of
> consensus
> > each major opinion has, what the reasons/justifications behind each
> opinion
> > are, and various detailed opinions from individuals. It would be
> especially
> > great to have detailed evaluations of each proposal published by variou=
s
> > people so anyone can go back and understand their thought process (as
> > opposed to a list of names attached to basically a thumbs up or thumbs
> > down). Think like a supreme court decision kind of thing.
>
> Yeah, again I don't see meetings as bounded in time rather happening
> regularly as we have with LN ones. I guess it's going to take at least a
> good year for working group participants to take habits and familiarity
> with the problem space and reach consensus on the process itself. Further=
,
> I would be even cautious about something restrained like "group consensus=
"
> in Bitcoin FOSS. At best, it's just a snapshot of people's understanding =
of
> the technical issues in state X at time T, and that can evaluate quickly =
in
> function of new findings or issues arising. I think it's more interesting
> to seek a lack of consensus in the sense of opposite opinions or blocking
> arguments. I wouldn't disqualify thumbs up or thumbs down per se, there a=
re
> marks of interest in a specific proposal, though I lean to agree that I
> find more interesting too laid-out evaluations and thought processes.
>
> > The process doesn't need to be complete after phase 6. Any previous pha=
se
> > could be revisited, but after a phase is revisited, the phases after it
> > should probably be also revisited in order - or at least until its
> decided
> > a previous phase needs to be revisited again. Each iteration would
> solidify
> > consensus more about each phase. I would imagine the group might loop
> > through phases 2, 3, and 4 a couple times (since constraints might
> conflict
> > with motivating features). It might be likely that in phase 5 while
> > evaluating proposals, people realize that there are additional criteria
> > that should be added and can propose going back to step 4 to do that.
> > Hopefully we would get to the point where the motivations and constrain=
ts
> > and relatively solid consensuses and iterations can loop through phases=
5
> > and 6 until the set of proposals the group thinks is worth pursuing is
> > narrowed down (ideally to 1 or 2).
>
> For sure, in the function of new feedback arising it's good to constantly
> reevaluate proposals. Hopefully, I think any looping should make proposal=
s
> more formalized and accurate. We might also have the "easy" covenants
> moving faster than the "hard" ones across the phases. I believe the
> covenant problem space might be solved in an evolutionary way, layer by
> layer akin to how LN moves forward.
>
> Le mer. 3 ao=C3=BBt 2022 =C3=A0 11:37, Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.c=
om> a
> =C3=A9crit :
>
>> @Antoine
>> I very much like your proposal of an open decentralized process for
>> investigating the problem and solution spaces. IRC sounds like a reasona=
ble
>> place for this kind of thing to happen. I also agree with Ryan Grant's
>> comment about in-person cut-through (ie cut through the BS and resolve
>> misunderstandings). Perhaps every 3 IRC meetings or so, an in-person mee=
tup
>> can be organized in various locations to facilitate that kind of cut
>> through.
>>
>> I would imagine the phases the group could go through is:
>> 1. Define the phases (these phases). This list of 6 phases could be a
>> starting point, but its probably best to open the floor to whether this
>> feels like a reasonable approach and if more phases are needed or if som=
e
>> aren't.
>> 2. Define and prioritize the motivations (ie the various features and
>> functionality we want out of covenants, like the ones you listed). By
>> prioritize, I mostly mean figure out which motivations are most motivati=
ng
>> to people and rate them by strength of motivation (rather than a ranked
>> list).
>> 3. Define and prioritize the relevant constraints. These are things to
>> avoid in any covenant implementation. Constraints that have been brought=
up
>> in the past are things like preventing the possibility of infinite coven=
ant
>> recursion, full enumeration, preventing dynamic state, etc. By prioritiz=
e
>> here, it might be useful to categorize them into categories like "no
>> tolerance", "some tolerance", "no reservations". Eg it might turn out mo=
st
>> people don't have any tolerance for infinite recursion, but don't mind
>> non-full enumeration.
>> 4. Other criteria? These are other criteria we might want to evaluate
>> proposals according to. And some kind of way to prioritize them / evalua=
te
>> them against each other as trade offs.
>> 5. Evaluate the proposals based on motivations, constraints, and other
>> criteria. This phase shouldn't involve comparing them to each other.
>> 6. Produce a set of conclusions/opinions on which proposals are worth
>> pursuing further. This would be the phase where proposals are compared.
>>
>> Each phase would probably span over more than one meeting. I imagine eac=
h
>> phase basically consisting of discussing each individual nominated item =
(ie
>> motivations, constraints, other criteria, or proposals) sequentially. Th=
e
>> consensus reached at the end of each phase would be considered of course=
a
>> group consensus of those who participated, not a global consensus, not a
>> "bitcoin community consensus". After each phase, the results of that pha=
se
>> would be published more widely to get broader community feedback. These
>> results would include what the major opinions are, what level of consens=
us
>> each major opinion has, what the reasons/justifications behind each opin=
ion
>> are, and various detailed opinions from individuals. It would be especia=
lly
>> great to have detailed evaluations of each proposal published by various
>> people so anyone can go back and understand their thought process (as
>> opposed to a list of names attached to basically a thumbs up or thumbs
>> down). Think like a supreme court decision kind of thing.
>>
>> The process doesn't need to be complete after phase 6. Any previous phas=
e
>> could be revisited, but after a phase is revisited, the phases after it
>> should probably be also revisited in order - or at least until its decid=
ed
>> a previous phase needs to be revisited again. Each iteration would solid=
ify
>> consensus more about each phase. I would imagine the group might loop
>> through phases 2, 3, and 4 a couple times (since constraints might confl=
ict
>> with motivating features). It might be likely that in phase 5 while
>> evaluating proposals, people realize that there are additional criteria
>> that should be added and can propose going back to step 4 to do that.
>> Hopefully we would get to the point where the motivations and constraint=
s
>> and relatively solid consensuses and iterations can loop through phases =
5
>> and 6 until the set of proposals the group thinks is worth pursuing is
>> narrowed down (ideally to 1 or 2).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 11:47 AM Bram Cohen via bitcoin-dev <
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 8:21 PM Antoine Riard <antoine.riard@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What would be the canonical definition and examples of capabilities in
>>>> the Bitcoin context ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Payments into vaults which can only be accepted by that vault and are
>>> guaranteed to be subject to the vault's restrictions (the vault has a
>>> capability)
>>>
>>> Oracles whose validity can be verified on chain (so transactions can
>>> depend on what they say. The oracle has a capability)
>>>
>>> Colored coins whose validity can be verified on chain (the colored coin=
s
>>> have a capability)
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>
>>
--00000000000018557005e73f56b7
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">>=C2=A0
I would like to note it's real work for the organizers in terms of time=
and energy: finding a common date making consensus, an acceptable host cou=
ntry (i.e respecting the travel policy of the widest...<div><br></div><div>=
I was actually not thinking one large central in-person meeting, but many s=
maller decentralized in-person meetings where no one has to travel far. The=
meetings can be used to foster communication that can then be summarized a=
nd/or brought online and discussed with the larger group. Would certainly=
=C2=A0make all those date/visa/etc issues a lot easier.=C2=A0</div><div><br=
></div><div>>=C2=A0
I would be even cautious about something restrained like "group consen=
sus" in Bitcoin FOSS. At best, it's just a snapshot of people'=
s understanding of the technical issues in state X at time T</div><div><br>=
</div><div>Fair enough. But I think part of the point here would be to use =
such a snapshot as an indicator that helps convince others that a particula=
r=C2=A0idea has been discussed, thought through, and has actual well-reason=
ed support. Whatever you call it, it would be a useful set of data points.<=
br><div><br></div><div>>=C2=A0 I believe the covenant problem space migh=
t be solved in an evolutionary way, layer by layer akin to how LN moves for=
ward.</div><div><br></div><div>Definitely.<br></div><div><br></div></div></=
div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On=
Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 3:15 PM Antoine Riard <<a href=3D"mailto:antoine.ri=
ard@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">antoine.riard@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>=
</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;b=
order-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">Hi=
Billy,<br><br>Thanks for your interest in a covenant working group.<br><br=
>> place for this kind of thing to happen. I also agree with Ryan Grant&=
#39;s<br>> comment about in-person cut-through (ie cut through the BS an=
d resolve<br>> misunderstandings). Perhaps every 3 IRC meetings or so, a=
n in-person meetup<br>> can be organized in various locations to facilit=
ate that kind of cut<br>> through.<br><br>I really appreciate in-person =
cut-through to resolve misunderstandings and accelerate the information syn=
chronization across the stakeholders of a problem space. However, I would l=
ike to note it's real work for the organizers in terms of time and ener=
gy: finding a common date making consensus, an acceptable host country (i.e=
respecting the travel policy of the widest, e.g organizing Scaling in Isra=
el in 2019 was an issue for some passport holders), a standard meeting loca=
tion, seeking event sponsors, communicating all those infos well ahead to e=
ase everyone travels, ensuring coffees & foods suiting many different d=
iets, collecting topics of discussions, etc. Further, even assuming travel =
support, it can still be a prohibitive cost for a lot of participants, e.g =
if you have to request months ahead to the host country authorities a dedic=
ated visa for the opportunity. I did a bit of in-person meetings organizing=
in the past, I'm clearly not interested in doing it anymore, though it=
would be cool if someone would like to do it for covenants in the future.<=
br><br>> I would imagine the phases the group could go through is:<br>&g=
t; 1. Define the phases (these phases). This list of 6 phases could be a<br=
>> starting point, but its probably best to open the floor to whether th=
is<br>> feels like a reasonable approach and if more phases are needed o=
r if some<br>> aren't.<br>> 2. Define and prioritize the motivati=
ons (ie the various features and<br>> functionality we want out of coven=
ants, like the ones you listed). By<br>> prioritize, I mostly mean figur=
e out which motivations are most motivating<br>> to people and rate them=
by strength of motivation (rather than a ranked<br>> list).<br>> 3. =
Define and prioritize the relevant constraints. These are things to<br>>=
avoid in any covenant implementation. Constraints that have been brought u=
p<br>> in the past are things like preventing the possibility of infinit=
e covenant<br>> recursion, full enumeration, preventing dynamic state, e=
tc. By prioritize<br>> here, it might be useful to categorize them into =
categories like "no<br>> tolerance", "some tolerance"=
;, "no reservations". Eg it might turn out most<br>> people do=
n't have any tolerance for infinite recursion, but don't mind<br>&g=
t; non-full enumeration.<br>> 4. Other criteria? These are other criteri=
a we might want to evaluate<br>> proposals according to. And some kind o=
f way to prioritize them / evaluate<br>> them against each other as trad=
e offs.<br>> 5. Evaluate the proposals based on motivations, constraints=
, and other<br>> criteria. This phase shouldn't involve comparing th=
em to each other.<br>> 6. Produce a set of conclusions/opinions on which=
proposals are worth<br>> pursuing further. This would be the phase wher=
e proposals are compared.<br><br>Yes, I think overall a lot is making sense=
. Though it's good to keep things as loose and see how it evaluates wit=
h time and new information showing up.<br><br>About 2., I think one more th=
ing to define is the list of use-cases, I would abstract out features and f=
unctionality from use-cases. E.g, I think with the TLUV proposal, the tapro=
ot output editing feature enables both "dynamic-amount" vault and=
scaling payment pools.<br><br>About 3., I think this is going to be the ha=
rd part. Collecting all the constraints and evaluating the risk tolerance o=
f as-much-as-we-can community stakeholders in face of known and plausible r=
isks. E.g, again with TLUV, I think it would make from now on the taproot i=
nternal pubkey and tree of alternative scripts a kind of "dynamic stat=
e".<br><br>About 4. I've quickly come to mind as additional criter=
ias economic simulations of any feature, privacy advantages, toolchain impl=
ementations complexity, evolvability and composability with future features=
.<br><br>About 6. I agree I think it's good to withhold comparison furt=
her down in the pipe we can, even if there is I would say some criteria-lea=
rning heuristics by mirroring features against another.<br><br>> Each ph=
ase would probably span over more than one meeting. I imagine each<br>> =
phase basically consisting of discussing each individual nominated item (ie=
<br>> motivations, constraints, other criteria, or proposals) sequential=
ly. The<br>> consensus reached at the end of each phase would be conside=
red of course a<br>> group consensus of those who participated, not a gl=
obal consensus, not a<br>> "bitcoin community consensus". Afte=
r each phase, the results of that phase<br>> would be published more wid=
ely to get broader community feedback. These<br>> results would include =
what the major opinions are, what level of consensus<br>> each major opi=
nion has, what the reasons/justifications behind each opinion<br>> are, =
and various detailed opinions from individuals. It would be especially<br>&=
gt; great to have detailed evaluations of each proposal published by variou=
s<br>> people so anyone can go back and understand their thought process=
(as<br>> opposed to a list of names attached to basically a thumbs up o=
r thumbs<br>> down). Think like a supreme court decision kind of thing.<=
br><br>Yeah, again I don't see meetings as bounded in time rather happe=
ning regularly as we have with LN ones. I guess it's going to take at l=
east a good year for working group participants to take habits and familiar=
ity with the problem space and reach consensus on the process itself. Furth=
er, I would be even cautious about something restrained like "group co=
nsensus" in Bitcoin FOSS. At best, it's just a snapshot of people&=
#39;s understanding of the technical issues in state X at time T, and that =
can evaluate quickly in function of new findings or issues arising. I think=
it's more interesting to seek a lack of consensus in the sense of oppo=
site opinions or blocking arguments. I wouldn't disqualify thumbs up or=
thumbs down per se, there are marks of interest in a specific proposal, th=
ough I lean to agree that I find more interesting too laid-out evaluations =
and thought processes.<br><br>> The process doesn't need to be compl=
ete after phase 6. Any previous phase<br>> could be revisited, but after=
a phase is revisited, the phases after it<br>> should probably be also =
revisited in order - or at least until its decided<br>> a previous phase=
needs to be revisited again. Each iteration would solidify<br>> consens=
us more about each phase. I would imagine the group might loop<br>> thro=
ugh phases 2, 3, and 4 a couple times (since constraints might conflict<br>=
> with motivating features). It might be likely that in phase 5 while<br=
>> evaluating proposals, people realize that there are additional criter=
ia<br>> that should be added and can propose going back to step 4 to do =
that.<br>> Hopefully we would get to the point where the motivations and=
constraints<br>> and relatively solid consensuses and iterations can lo=
op through phases 5<br>> and 6 until the set of proposals the group thin=
ks is worth pursuing =C2=A0is<br>> narrowed down (ideally to 1 or 2).<br=
><br>For sure, in the function of new feedback arising it's good to con=
stantly reevaluate proposals. Hopefully, I think any looping should make pr=
oposals more formalized and accurate. We might also have the "easy&quo=
t; covenants moving faster than the "hard" ones across the phases=
. I believe the covenant problem space might be solved in an evolutionary w=
ay, layer by layer akin to how LN moves forward. <br></div><br><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">Le=C2=A0mer. 3 ao=C3=
=BBt 2022 =C3=A0=C2=A011:37, Billy Tetrud <<a href=3D"mailto:billy.tetru=
d@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">billy.tetrud@gmail.com</a>> a =C3=A9crit=
=C2=A0:<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"><div dir=
=3D"ltr">@Antoine<div>I very much like your proposal of an open decentraliz=
ed process for investigating the problem and solution spaces. IRC sounds li=
ke a reasonable place for this kind of thing to happen. I also agree with R=
yan Grant's comment about in-person cut-through (ie cut through the BS =
and resolve misunderstandings). Perhaps every 3 IRC meetings or so, an in-p=
erson meetup can be organized in various locations to facilitate that kind =
of cut through.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>I would imagine=C2=A0the pha=
ses the group could go through is:</div><div>1. Define the phases (these ph=
ases). This list of 6 phases could be a starting point, but its probably be=
st to open the floor to whether this feels like a reasonable=C2=A0approach =
and if more phases are needed or if some aren't.=C2=A0</div><div>2. Def=
ine and prioritize the motivations (ie the various features and functionali=
ty we want out of covenants, like the ones you listed). By prioritize, I mo=
stly mean figure out which motivations are most motivating to people and ra=
te them by strength of motivation (rather than a ranked list).=C2=A0</div><=
div>3. Define and prioritize the relevant constraints. These are things to =
avoid in any covenant implementation. Constraints that have been brought up=
in the past are things like preventing the possibility of infinite covenan=
t recursion, full enumeration, preventing dynamic state, etc. By prioritize=
here, it might be useful to categorize them into categories like "no =
tolerance", "some tolerance", "no reservations". E=
g it might turn out most people don't have any tolerance for infinite r=
ecursion, but don't mind non-full enumeration.=C2=A0</div><div>4. Other=
criteria? These are other=C2=A0criteria we might want to evaluate proposal=
s according to. And some kind of way to prioritize them / evaluate them aga=
inst each other=C2=A0as trade offs.</div><div>5. Evaluate the proposals bas=
ed on motivations, constraints, and other criteria. This phase shouldn'=
t involve comparing them to each other.</div><div>6. Produce a set of concl=
usions/opinions on which proposals are worth pursuing=C2=A0further. This wo=
uld be the phase where proposals are compared.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><d=
iv>Each phase would probably span over more than one meeting. I imagine eac=
h phase basically consisting of discussing each individual nominated item=
=C2=A0(ie motivations, constraints, other criteria, or proposals) sequentia=
lly. The consensus reached at the end of each phase would be considered of =
course a group consensus of those who participated, not a global consensus,=
not a "bitcoin community consensus". After each phase, the resul=
ts of that phase would be published more widely to get broader community fe=
edback. These results would include what the major opinions are, what level=
of consensus each major opinion has, what the reasons/justifications behin=
d each opinion are, and various detailed opinions from individuals. It woul=
d be especially great to have detailed evaluations of each proposal publish=
ed by various people so anyone can go back and understand their thought pro=
cess (as opposed to a list of names attached to basically a thumbs up or th=
umbs down). Think like a supreme court decision kind of thing.=C2=A0</div><=
div><br></div><div>The process doesn't need to be complete after phase =
6. Any previous phase could be revisited,=C2=A0but after a phase is revisit=
ed, the phases after it should probably be also revisited in order - or at =
least until its decided a previous phase=C2=A0needs to be revisited again. =
Each iteration would solidify consensus more about each phase. I would imag=
ine the group might loop through phases 2, 3, and 4 a couple times (since c=
onstraints might conflict with motivating features). It might be likely tha=
t in phase 5 while evaluating proposals, people realize that there are addi=
tional criteria that should be added and can propose going back to step 4 t=
o do that. Hopefully we would get to the point where the motivations and co=
nstraints and relatively solid consensuses and iterations can loop through =
phases 5 and 6 until the set of proposals the group thinks is worth pursuin=
g=C2=A0 is narrowed down (ideally to 1 or 2).=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><di=
v><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Tue, Jul 26, 20=
22 at 11:47 AM Bram Cohen via bitcoin-dev <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev=
@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda=
tion.org</a>> 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-le=
ft:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr">On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 8:21 PM A=
ntoine Riard <<a href=3D"mailto:antoine.riard@gmail.com" target=3D"_blan=
k">antoine.riard@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quot=
e"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;bord=
er-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">What =
would be the canonical definition and examples of capabilities in the Bitco=
in context ?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Payments into vaults=
which can only be accepted by that vault and are guaranteed to be subject =
to the vault's restrictions (the vault has a capability)</div><div><div=
><br>Oracles whose validity can be verified on chain (so transactions can d=
epend on what they say. The oracle has a capability)</div><div><br></div></=
div><div>Colored coins whose validity can be verified on chain (the colored=
coins have a capability)</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,20=
4);padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_=
quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,=
204);padding-left:1ex">
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
_______________________________________________<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>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>
--00000000000018557005e73f56b7--
|