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
|
Return-Path: <darosior@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00CB7C002D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 22 Apr 2022 11:11:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2FBE40CD6
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 22 Apr 2022 11:11:50 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.126
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.126 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,
PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD=1.975, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=no 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 x9nW4EncvNzn
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 22 Apr 2022 11:11:49 +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 smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92FF740CE1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 22 Apr 2022 11:11:49 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 11:11:41 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail; t=1650625906;
bh=YRUkFYFvG6Q1ORJNlM7C2XYgVfW8l36jWvXOZGWm3pY=;
h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:
Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID:Message-ID;
b=Lf4svTUoY37YCIUD+tOF11pMhOdqqhCm8R/RPYjHljD86p/au7EgpnvTVYkU1llq8
BMIv9yGCH+Iet3izcmEmL/dB/6dJ3BRJmAmSI3cqscgZ0Jc3qAWXlzVgkR4SAcZNPd
OW40EcAcY0BcdevogVP4iDXxt/sf6BbfzHmLWYXSDanuS2/xAwOR4rHMLeYwcBhOng
Pkzab9LbqPmh+mYkbpNCSQ14Kk6HQ0sxzW9C2//2ZDuKLoRV+/jEBJoxwJ7NvPyhT+
ttcxDcL3+RDjJCg1gzjiUX9nMO46lpH71SJawxA/moEm5Iqmb95ofS5SgUnGDf+/tW
dP6xNP0hEG0wQ==
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: darosior <darosior@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: darosior <darosior@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <p3P0m2_aNXd-4oYhFjCKJyI8zQXahmZed6bv7lnj9M9HbP9gMqMtJr-pP7XRAPs-rn_fJuGu1cv9ero5i8f0cvyZrMXYPzPx17CxJ2ZSvRk=@protonmail.com>
Feedback-ID: 7060259:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 11:23:06 +0000
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] ANYPREVOUT in place of 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: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 11:11:51 -0000
I would like to know people's sentiment about doing (a very slightly tweake=
d version of) BIP118 in place of
(or before doing) BIP119.
SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT and its precedent iterations have been discussed for ove=
r 6 years. It presents proven and
implemented usecases, that are demanded and (please someone correct me if i=
'm wrong) more widely accepted than
CTV's.
SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUTANYSCRIPT, if its "ANYONECANPAY" behaviour is made option=
al [0], can emulate CTV just fine.
Sure then you can't have bare or Segwit v0 CTV, and it's a bit more expensi=
ve to use. But we can consider CTV
an optimization of APO-AS covenants.
CTV advocates have been presenting vaults as the flagship usecase. Although=
as someone who've been trying to
implement practical vaults for the past 2 years i doubt CTV is necessary no=
r sufficient for this (but still
useful!), using APO-AS covers it. And it's not a couple dozen more virtual =
bytes that are going to matter for
a potential vault user.
If after some time all of us who are currently dubious about CTV's stated u=
secases are proven wrong by onchain
usage of a less efficient construction to achieve the same goal, we could r=
oll-out CTV as an optimization. In
the meantime others will have been able to deploy new applications leveragi=
ng ANYPREVOUT (Eltoo, blind
statechains, etc..[1]).
Given the interest in, and demand for, both simple covenants and better off=
chain protocols it seems to me that
BIP118 is a soft fork candidate that could benefit more (if not most of) Bi=
tcoin users.
Actually i'd also be interested in knowing if people would oppose the APO-A=
S part of BIP118, since it enables
CTV's features, for the same reason they'd oppose BIP119.
[0] That is, to not commit to the other inputs of the transaction (via `sha=
_sequences` and maybe also
`sha_amounts`). Cf https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0118.med=
iawiki#signature-message.
[1] https://anyprevout.xyz/ "Use Cases" section
|
