MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <161946014-482cdec305e2bd7a2c3fc4774c70239d@pmq1v.m5r2.onet>
 <M80pb4TxcE1yCMCW4IboyTtx8MSvp8m9tphXe2EYvIvcrcf2Wzsn4ManJw8EP_ri-ohqtIOPrEaw7XkUcTO3lfVSLN4WMUwpromwzLm15Kc=@protonmail.com>
 <CAMZUoKnzjcYDM-mOhT00P7YO18YmjxRkYsfO6QFtYFn0mEtLQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <fkMEju1kNN5OJPoI1d2K99sV0bhr7qeAnhVbv-99K_UL48YQyHp-rbqEfQ81crx-thaA8JuUY4-eFlYUskvFC_8h6DIhdF0Wj-v-4DNnlcI=@protonmail.com>
 <CAMZUoKmhOpt2N+6YxxREMzmRca2hNnPHBMRMsT09efkEs0CJiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220513214347.GA2463@erisian.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <20220513214347.GA2463@erisian.com.au>
From: "Russell O'Connor" <roconnor@blockstream.com>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 19:33:36 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMZUoK=stZaPcTNfC_KdOxbQp=VyORwC3osSm3sTeQ0WZ4ejYQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001e6e7f05deed1b7d"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Speedy covenants (OP_CAT2)
Precedence: list

--0000000000001e6e7f05deed1b7d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 5:43 PM Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au> wrote:

> For any specific opcode proposal, I think you still want to consider
>
>  1) how much you can do with it
>  2) how efficient it is to validate (and thus how cheap it is to use)
>  3) how easy it is to make it do what you want
>  4) how helpful it is at preventing bugs
>  5) how clean and maintainable the validation code is
>
> I guess to me CTV and APO are weakest at (1); CAT/CSFS falls down on
> (3) and (4); OP_TX is probably weakest at (5) and maybe not as good as
> we'd like at (3) and (4)?
>

FWIW, I think the rmain reasons to do CAT+CSFS is to validate oracle
messages and pubkey delegation.  The ability to covenants would be
secondary and would mostly serve to get us some real user data about what
sort of covenants users find especially valuable.

--0000000000001e6e7f05deed1b7d
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail=
_attr">On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 5:43 PM Anthony Towns &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:=
aj@erisian.com.au">aj@erisian.com.au</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote cl=
ass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid=
 rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">For any specific opcode proposal, I thi=
nk you still want to consider<br>
<br>
=C2=A01) how much you can do with it<br>
=C2=A02) how efficient it is to validate (and thus how cheap it is to use)<=
br>
=C2=A03) how easy it is to make it do what you want<br>
=C2=A04) how helpful it is at preventing bugs<br>
=C2=A05) how clean and maintainable the validation code is<br>
<br>
I guess to me CTV and APO are weakest at (1); CAT/CSFS falls down on<br>
(3) and (4); OP_TX is probably weakest at (5) and maybe not as good as<br>
we&#39;d like at (3) and (4)?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>FWIW, I t=
hink the rmain reasons to do CAT+CSFS is to validate oracle messages and pu=
bkey delegation.=C2=A0 The ability to covenants would be secondary and woul=
d mostly serve to get us some real user data about what sort of covenants u=
sers find especially valuable.<br></div></div></div>

--0000000000001e6e7f05deed1b7d--