path: root/d2/69bd277ac6eb6dd2c87121b55eef5ad6c7a101

Delivery-date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:57:47 -0700
Received: from mail-qv1-f61.google.com ([209.85.219.61])
	by mail.fairlystable.org with esmtps  (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256
	(Exim 4.94.2)
	(envelope-from <bitcoindev+bncBCU2P6FJ3EBBBGXVY3BAMGQELIGV44Y@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1uRbVA-0005L2-Eg
	for bitcoindev@gnusha.org; Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:57:46 -0700
Received: by mail-qv1-f61.google.com with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-6fac216872csf118869416d6.2
        for <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>; Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; t=1750186654; cv=pass;
        d=google.com; s=arc-20240605;
        b=Tx9RTfP9LWMSe26GtAwNnlJ1DexRECksDHFBb91HiPKXUVekFaujsGU3zZ3WhCJ2G5
         enP+TDi2v+AKqpqx6BF7/PqLb3wk8VHOcvDJ2nmsJLkTUNVVIRQs7K3E2cvCKp8/J5QH
         3+zjzw0LRhGNuZNGC+SimSgZOzcgoSZLQtuqPIEUSzYhlRBi9+7K7Kuvsm0zghiIHGaq
         thPiHH7XBoU8/A2xhTihmXyvH3BCP1NFV63FvLPiA0grjadD16CN4IhijwlzOlyPAtAi
         SHoP0qHPhkh1qYv6Jni8tISI7HWrBwJOpH8P/sxOPe7RYGZPI2Y6aJTTif0UXwbHeZGu
         dLeA==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605;
        h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post
         :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from
         :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:sender:dkim-signature
         :dkim-signature;
        bh=bdE7EIhYX8rQtD05X+OsQEfgLio8A4fuByxLEHdp514=;
        fh=Omv9h5QhyVhx+evRUyxApESfnytLQzWQJ08b5CI6Vb0=;
        b=Ib4FreIMu1UQlUxOM/N8dPQHQ5IORScmBIehP/zxcWAyKrSIXiTGSDA3w7UMM6ObFK
         etjqnSEnwpgi1+F0FqV8vRpbF+FnmVIf7SYcLquuNpcC1Ow1CmYXbKkw0mGIX8U1/IF9
         BMJguF3xf8WYND8zSqgKankZ1WaeiEOsnRRLO8P25KfnwYZzSBgveZQdHJHKyuXrB0Mw
         c0FBsGc82eMg5qI/KPhonjScCDuRT3hT6fxNADPYhr2gWKbmk4g4BXmP2T4UKqtWL8Cj
         jGfis5z3Vro5xLfeVZc6NhXYo04bBZBWhV2QIPg87FyAfDRJte56plTWPnBVebJcp5Wk
         42dQ==;
        darn=gnusha.org
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=2; gmr-mx.google.com;
       dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=hVPeV0eK;
       spf=pass (google.com: domain of alicexbtong@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::329 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=alicexbtong@gmail.com;
       dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com;
       dara=pass header.i=@googlegroups.com
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=20230601; t=1750186654; x=1750791454; darn=gnusha.org;
        h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post
         :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-authentication-results
         :x-original-sender:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to
         :references:mime-version:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id
         :reply-to;
        bh=bdE7EIhYX8rQtD05X+OsQEfgLio8A4fuByxLEHdp514=;
        b=wwP68SE2JSa9cxlQTTSDLkE4sJ5mP96HXSEpghAhAk1J1S0CmL0ErcM+/PlcMYClsD
         3wEy6DN85Hc500/SJDX7SJpLxnKG5iCEKgTOggn0qAD/pbdVnqAnkk09WQqRKvDyXxw6
         F7UD65FHtPLixtd5kUiiZwRAyJFqh78EvtNMggNIgk1VGm9l/PPvWLw2YDpgnOMZBWM7
         EGriaqk8pT9ysVATW7qHG8j70XeUsjso4tJbf1TEFUI+ZjeNo3+aiOR6i80WzPASrZPF
         f5S5AEPw/Xx1kdm4tgWzWKqrzcBbGn058fFq0I6OuDjipuA9FpKRQuu6Whz5UOjRqscQ
         D67Q==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1750186654; x=1750791454; darn=gnusha.org;
        h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post
         :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-authentication-results
         :x-original-sender:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to
         :references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to;
        bh=bdE7EIhYX8rQtD05X+OsQEfgLio8A4fuByxLEHdp514=;
        b=KCJREcduHIGSWbMD7YVWbav16lNSWFr17jzwJofopchimD/uRHvOltOScGZt9ykYcI
         /mcVDNRbI4Ouo+W4k4wTEqr+uyfoWIN1X6gwyAjP/PlzWXwYcamW5iyT1bVdl/8PA7wE
         87l24GOuqcVdeaDOTmtFiwWTkqIrFICFUaGo4aHr1SqWDyekMAEjSjHlgWs57VhP2Fpe
         KEWClP1m9/sHb3yJu/nOIF8DDFb1enfSKiozNBaeU9TZyiB/z4pEitmyxBm01BInSiyA
         sNdDDwlX/mw2IZARHGSySmZd+ykMY2dS7BBCxkpKDFSQyNzsSsgja8g1J2Hqo0apkw1e
         2HAQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1750186654; x=1750791454;
        h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post
         :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:x-original-authentication-results
         :x-original-sender:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to
         :references:mime-version:x-beenthere:x-gm-message-state:sender:from
         :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to;
        bh=bdE7EIhYX8rQtD05X+OsQEfgLio8A4fuByxLEHdp514=;
        b=nXrgZprKYYrc0QEWfHc8yDo8+aKt31Dihb7GQCZ15mrLfuK9MuVs3vxCcGOiGQoC1E
         EXaxkAXeq/hgDlV6A1b7P+pHezDH05G8LE/U0xhWIhU6mETrp7JhjPafPSNAKqMcs8yz
         KN61Fi+U6udJqOIfiFZLCZ+VxP3HeuBxv031Jq5aMwT52C0ZxH6MV4i7IQhMY7s+s8i1
         T6mL00wsg6CxJntMefIsZstsoX/1CYJzuXiqimx2UxaCtrCn13J/HDDLzNDuuugJvDDY
         hYj8Idoqcc8A7SSBKcNttHJ3PN7Mkj5i4l/68C9QtbmykFU/1JRYfcjy96LUbXdriki6
         XTbw==
Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=2; AJvYcCWHpVpKLzzwBBcxmJmpqFtbhuams5bqU4UBM/7zcJZu0KYHuhmSYUQ3Y5d0cehQ6n5CsPv46MJaHNW2@gnusha.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yx6Pf3QsQ3Qa0gPzrFld+e5x311wmz98q+O5AMZEjFkJjvb6YTe
	5kRrG2Z1po3dr6q2CDVTgXfByMIT4V2cdC+3VRbOL7qsWtC8oJOd0/vZ
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFr6vzsgI8SXrVaiMFEOl7jgLbrOHl9EKmIVLmBGt7nwNdQZ6YGpnDR0f99NvsvPZpp3+d9vQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:5f07:b0:6fa:9a6a:7d03 with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-6fb47773412mr284781886d6.7.1750186654460;
        Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:57:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; h=AZMbMZf6HaT4zQIYGUnUTiEkOQehfse+n+XRdyY1ltH2v4g4bQ==
Received: by 2002:a05:6214:250c:b0:6fa:bf2a:9be7 with SMTP id
 6a1803df08f44-6fb3544c20fls80996526d6.0.-pod-prod-06-us; Tue, 17 Jun 2025
 11:57:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=2; AJvYcCXLGlUMWrP5ka18x9vkvgaZXe8NFQCiFzbXwiUfutqKDItYxLxiFgFnrAHnc25sPiBGozE78OtbQsIT@googlegroups.com
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:1242:b0:6f4:cfb3:9df9 with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-6fb477e7e2cmr246092416d6.33.1750186650060;
        Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:57:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 2002:a05:620a:5d8e:b0:7c5:3b15:3956 with SMTP id af79cd13be357-7d3e0088b54ms85a;
        Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=2; AJvYcCXVNq3BppcIXMwNqQ8LyQgFb4NrtoWL6sXm9BBnUmoKOgpYNh6/V6EubaoJI0a93AXeaPGtE1uoTsKM@googlegroups.com
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:38c7:b0:4e5:a0a9:3ad1 with SMTP id ada2fe7eead31-4e7f618872fmr11862663137.2.1750184404355;
        Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:20:04 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1750184404; cv=none;
        d=google.com; s=arc-20240605;
        b=fUYA0y446P6ga5t3mNya4PIx66qIaLOHuOKKHXdwYIwNQ2DU9FTFx1mraDFOI/rVmx
         Wy2yaZ+XpQwW2Ip/qQ2U8alVOUlPpZYnkVvwgrrPb792BBrOsKP+u5TsKVd/qIy727ey
         d3LZxjOMJGGxWSIdkcohm32jAlHWKgBxhtlufFNx5xq6+xy9QeIKA9aj3PBCJBtN1hwj
         n/4oO/Yt34ALkQCCeqmMrcQSDcf4Dc8PMW3oKh+uwII//T1fYg7UAVUjWS2OxtK9NBi2
         XeIrAj3R/R6q+kKOaKe5wzxWxT2aVuz/mGCo7w8+YliJynSCpgyXpmWbGoaBLO7mD9B0
         Hpzg==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605;
        h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references
         :mime-version:dkim-signature;
        bh=i/03a/iN4wX7ONqkpTQOTNRV9dLqDA8Y4JhCydMVsK4=;
        fh=Qb7Th88gVgsldXA/DvCLgkkwdjUd69ItlBX/JkXucLs=;
        b=ioaduLFUU9kgPBExc6kAGvI4wT445h7qEzFLQWXkZN8uoKQ5e0JWdCOMwDIlUJ8Fnd
         WSHnw7GNKmyaxobYnOkpFiHJ7BEHIQzjw+tktF5tGtf5IVoZMFUIqLRgFpEg6KJdAwiU
         WIt42x+EVQ2hyM+9veLtEqxjQh/thNQbGrFE3FCP3nZhjctn0qCEuFAUtT6gChOmg7nE
         QIyGtSubo1Bu1LwtMTE220Air7uNhM7pK4DVvz0QQ7H24ujLe3RSCPdagmZFET5u4e6O
         1dFOYlXSalzjlF92N80LF/1XIC7d/Xpq7+MKKe8eMTbHVh78XRlEeWEsAxIKCNsn1kGc
         jH+A==;
        dara=google.com
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; gmr-mx.google.com;
       dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=hVPeV0eK;
       spf=pass (google.com: domain of alicexbtong@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::329 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=alicexbtong@gmail.com;
       dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com;
       dara=pass header.i=@googlegroups.com
Received: from mail-ot1-x329.google.com (mail-ot1-x329.google.com. [2607:f8b0:4864:20::329])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a1e0cc1a2514c-87f0f9f384fsi382684241.1.2025.06.17.11.20.04
        for <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>
        (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128);
        Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:20:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of alicexbtong@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::329 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::329;
Received: by mail-ot1-x329.google.com with SMTP id 46e09a7af769-72c13802133so2176795a34.3
        for <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>; Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:20:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXHGZL9aBBL6otRGrFKFPlgm/Ly/SEX2P2jUYwPOEexWZs/WevQidTPqKDE34K+US5WmVdzLHmLGJoo@googlegroups.com
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncsvsZeGALA+zhUf9nsqfQ0RYCK6vW9wginh3LRoKKVIwQu30lPAhLG70T9lzFw
	cls/bWse1pakR0P5V3M360a86/6pjN4ES598xmsEhG9GZs3ufpTdNz9tgmM+8FF1XtTGl8JYC10
	lSRI+hMVlVHbKMTaoNI9Mc9QBI1BLfhiKAxRiAUfB++l4j9szRiMwmAi/kozyX1fSTov0zZ7GH
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:d251:b0:2e9:365:d0d3 with SMTP id
 586e51a60fabf-2eaf083722cmr7977190fac.21.1750184402607; Tue, 17 Jun 2025
 11:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <a86c2737-db79-4f54-9c1d-51beeb765163n@googlegroups.com>
 <035f8b9c-9711-4edb-9d01-bef4a96320e1@roose.io> <GLGZ3rEDfqaW8jAfIA6ac78uQzjEdYQaJf3ER9gd4e-wBXsiS2NK0wAj8LWK8VHf7w6Zru3IKbtDU5NM102jD8wMjjw8y7FmiDtQIy9U7Y4=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <GLGZ3rEDfqaW8jAfIA6ac78uQzjEdYQaJf3ER9gd4e-wBXsiS2NK0wAj8LWK8VHf7w6Zru3IKbtDU5NM102jD8wMjjw8y7FmiDtQIy9U7Y4=@protonmail.com>
From: "/dev /fd0" <alicexbtong@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 23:49:50 +0530
X-Gm-Features: Ac12FXzzsDgrtBEXxbvq-Nh82gV3-MneCH2erF2cwXFyKByoA04QkNDQX42ea2A
Message-ID: <CALiT-Zr3KO0fw1_DCpDVvA1Z1aLrvM-HFtvdsyLKhXxWvR=hvA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoindev] CTV + CSFS: a letter
To: Antoine Poinsot <darosior@protonmail.com>
Cc: Steven Roose <steven@roose.io>, "James O'Beirne" <james.obeirne@gmail.com>, 
	Bitcoin Development Mailing List <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009be4ec0637c88fd7"
X-Original-Sender: alicexbtong@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com;       dkim=pass
 header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=hVPeV0eK;       spf=pass
 (google.com: domain of alicexbtong@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4864:20::329
 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=alicexbtong@gmail.com;       dmarc=pass
 (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com;       dara=pass header.i=@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <bitcoindev.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 786775582512
List-Post: <https://groups.google.com/group/bitcoindev/post>, <mailto:bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <https://groups.google.com/support/>, <mailto:bitcoindev+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <https://groups.google.com/group/bitcoindev
List-Subscribe: <https://groups.google.com/group/bitcoindev/subscribe>, <mailto:bitcoindev+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:googlegroups-manage+786775582512+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>,
 <https://groups.google.com/group/bitcoindev/subscribe>
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)

--0000000000009be4ec0637c88fd7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I created a wiki page for [use cases][0] in December 2024. It does not
include LN SYMMETRY and other things possible when CHECKSIGFROMSTACK is
used in combination with CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the language used in the letter
or the intentions of those who signed it. The misinterpretation may be
genuine or simply an excuse to stall the process for a few more years. That
said, I had suggested [rephrasing][1] one of the paragraphs to help avoid
misunderstanding and keep the focus on technical discussion.

I really appreciate James O'Beirne for his efforts, as well as the others
who signed this letter. Most users prefer public communication about soft
forks.

[0]: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Covenants_Uses
[1]: https://github.com/ctv-csfs/ctv-csfs.github.io/issues/15

/dev/fd0
floppy disk guy

On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 9:03=E2=80=AFPM 'Antoine Poinsot' via Bitcoin Devel=
opment
Mailing List <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Steven,
>
> I'd like to first express my disappointment with the amount of drama this
> letter has caused.
>
>
> Likewise. As i mentioned earlier i think this bundle of capabilities is
> worth considering for a use case driven soft fork. I felt like, despite t=
he
> lack of substantive work on the proposal, we were finally going somewhere
> in the discussion on extending Bitcoin's scripting capabilities.
>
> Instead of addressing minor objections to the design of the operations an=
d
> working on demonstrating (real) use cases, the champion chose the route o=
f
> political pressure on the Bitcoin Core project. Signatories backed this
> approach.
>
> In changing Bitcoin, the process matters as much as the outcome. If
> Bitcoin can be changed through a shouting match and on the basis of
> misleading pseudo use cases, it would be a major fuck up. Likewise if a
> suboptimal change can be rammed through without addressing objections and
> reasonable requests from the technical community, by bamboozling industry
> stakeholders into the false dichotomy "it's either this or ossification".
>
> Bitcoin Core cannot, in my opinion, facilitate setting such a precedent.
> Therefore this effort sets us back a long way in getting a consensus chan=
ge
> merged there, and on the broader path of extending Bitcoin's scripting
> functionalities
>
> It quite literally merely asks Core contributors to put this proposal on
> their agenda with some urgency.
>
>
> This is incorrect and misrepresenting the content of the letter. It
> specifically asks, i'm quoting "integration of CTV (PR #31989
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31989> or similar)". This is
> asking Core to merge a pull request implementing a contentious consensus
> change. And so, not by making the case for it with strong technical
> arguments but by presenting signatures from industry stakeholders. I trus=
t
> we all both agree it is inadvisable to change the Bitcoin Core decision
> process from making software changes based on objective rough technical
> consensus toward making software changes based on the subjective intentio=
ns
> of whoever has influence in the space at the moment.
>
> Given that only a handful of Core contributors had thus far participated
> in the conversation on the proposal elsewhere
>
>
> And pressure to merge code for an obviously controversial consensus chang=
e
> is a great way to make sure not more of them engage, if lurking at how pr=
evious
> CTV discussions went
> <https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/ctv-csfs-can-we-reach-consensus-on-a-first-=
step-towards-covenants/1509/37?u=3Dantoinep>
> wasn't enough.
>
> it seemed like a suitable next step to communicate that we want Core
> contributors to provide their position within this conversation
>
>
> How could you ever think it be a "suitable next step"? Bitcoin Core
> contributors spend their days maintaining the existing Bitcoin network,
> where making it boringly stable is success. Asking the project to merge a
> contentious consensus change, disregarding conceptual review, is just
> laughable. I don't see how piling a sign-on letter on top of this would
> improve anything.
>
> In conclusion, i would like to state i understand the frustration of this
> proposal not making progress and how it led many signatories to get on
> board with the letter. I do not ascribe bad intentions to most of them.
> However the effect of this letter has been, as could have been expected, =
a
> major setback in making progress on this proposal (or more broadly this
> bundle of capabilities). I am not sure how we bounce back from this, but =
it
> necessarily involves someone standing up and actually doing the work of
> addressing technical feedback from the community and demonstrating (real)
> use cases. The way forward must be by building consensus on the basis of
> strong objective, technical, arguments. Not with a bunch of people statin=
g
> interest and nobody acting up and helping the proposal move forward.
>
> Best,
> Antoine Poinsot
> On Tuesday, June 17th, 2025 at 7:31 AM, Steven Roose <steven@roose.io>
> wrote:
>
> Hey all
>
>
> I've been following the discussion and noticed TXHASH is mentioned a lot.
> As a signer of the letter and author of the TXHASH proposal, I'd like to
> chime in with some thoughts.
>
> However, I'd like to first express my disappointment with the amount of
> drama this letter has caused. It quite literally merely asks Core
> contributors to put this proposal on their agenda with some urgency. No
> threats, no hard words.
> Given that only a handful of Core contributors had thus far participated
> in the conversation on the proposal elsewhere, it seemed like a suitable
> next step to communicate that we want Core contributors to provide their
> position within this conversation.
> I strongly stand against an approach involving independent activation
> clients and I think the sentiment of this e-mail aligns with the preferen=
ce
> of having Core be involved in any deployment of protocol upgrades.
>
> On the proposal itself. I have heard some mentions of TXHASH and why we,
> as the developer community, wouldn't go straight for TXHASH.
>
>    - I think TXHASH is too far from being ready at this point:
>    - The TXHASH BIP and spec has not had the level of review/engagement
>       that I had hoped for. I'm personally pretty happy with the result,
>       especially since it only has had serious looks from myself and Rear=
den. But
>       it definitely needs a lot more scrutiny. It's a very opinionated de=
sign (I
>       think it's unavoidable for such an opcode), so there is a lot of ro=
om for
>       making different and maybe better decisions on many fronts.
>       - Once we have the TXHASH semantics, it would be very valuable to
>       consider also introducing the same semantics as a top-level sighash=
 flag
>       system, so you can spend coins directly with a sighash based on TXH=
ASH
>       semantics. (I dubbed this TXSIGHASH and I recently did some simulat=
ions on
>       how such a construction would look for fee sponsoring and stacking
>       https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/jit-fees-with-txhash-comparing-options=
-for-sponsorring-and-stacking/1760
>       )
>       - However, this also invites some additional review of possible
>       taproot changes (pay-to-tapscript, re-adding parity byte, ..) and w=
ill
>       necessarily take some more time for consideration and design.
>       - I strongly believe it would benefit development of new bitcoin
>    use cases if we would have a simple version of templating and rebindab=
le
>    signatures sooner rather than later. Both BitVM and Ark are fairly rec=
ent
>    ideas that stand to benefit significantly from such new functionality,=
 but
>    I think having them actually available will invite a lot more engageme=
nt
>    leading to new ideas and new improvements. These are not use case-spec=
ific
>    changes, but useful general building blocks.
>    - Both CSFS and CTV are fairly unopinionated opcodes by design, when
>    you think of CTV in the sense that it fixes the minimum tx fields to e=
nsure
>    txid stability.
>    - I think there is both enough excitement for this proposal and there
>    would be enough future excitement for a TXHASH or CCV addition that I =
don't
>    fear upgrade churn will be a future hurdle.
>    - Even after possible TXHASH activation, I think there will stay some
>    demand for the simpler CTV/TEMPLATEHASH variant. It doesn't just save =
a
>    byte on the wire, but thinking in a txid-stable model is just more
>    intuitive. I believe that many advanced use cases will take advantage =
from
>    doing things the TXHASH way (enabling stacking and cheaper fee sponsor=
ing),
>    but some developers will always favor the simplicity of txid stability=
 over
>    the benefits of adding complexity.
>
> The above arguments convinced me that an activation based on CTV and CSFS
> makes sense today. We have lots of developers waiting to make use of the
> functionality it enables and we can continue development of further chang=
es
> meanwhile.
>
> That being said, I'm in no way married to the exact details of the
> proposals.
>
>    - I am sympathetic to worries of changing legacy/v0 script. I failed
>    to convince myself of any valuable usage for bare CTV.
>    - I am sympathetic to the consideration of revisiting scriptSig and
>    annex-related modifications to the template hash.
>    - I am sympathetic to the decision to optimize better for the
>    rebindable signature use cases, meaning:
>    - the idea to swap CTV for a TEMPLATEHASH opcode which adds a 1-byte
>       VERIFY for the template use case but saves 33 bytes for the signatu=
re use
>       case
>       - the addition of an INTERNALKEY opcode, saving an additional 33
>       bytes for the rebindable signature use case
>
> All of the above changes I think can be decided on with minimal
> bikeshedding and still encompass the same semantics of the original
> proposal.
>
>
> Best
>
> Steven
>
>
> On 6/9/25 12:40, James O'Beirne wrote:
>
> Good morning,
>
> A letter has been published advocating for the final review and
> activation of OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY (BIP-119) and OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK
> (BIP-348).
>
> The full text of the letter can be found at https://ctv-csfs.com. It is
> reproduced below.
>
> ---
>
> To the technical bitcoin community,
>
> We believe that the best next step for bitcoin would be to activate
> OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY (CTV, BIP-119) and OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK (CSFS,
> BIP-348). These opcodes enable functionality for a broad set of uses
> that will allow bitcoin to preserve and expand its role as a scarce,
> censorship-resistant store of value.
>
> While there are a few promising proposals to improve bitcoin at the
> consensus layer which may someday be deployed, we believe that CTV and
> CSFS are uniquely well reviewed, simple, and have been proven to be both
> safe and widely demanded.
>
> CTV was first formalized in BIP-119 over 5 years ago. Despite many
> attempts at refinement or replacement, it has remained the most widely
> preferred method for enforcing pregenerated transaction sequences using
> consensus. It unlocks valuable functionality for scaling solutions,
> vaults, congestion control, non-custodial mining, discreet log
> contracts, and more.
>
> CSFS is a primitive opcode that has been deployed to Blockstream=E2=80=99=
s
> Elements for at least 8 years. It represents no significant
> computational burden over bitcoin=E2=80=99s most often used opcode, OP_CH=
ECKSIG.
> It can be combined with CTV to implement ln-symmetry, a longstanding
> improvement to Lightning. It also unlocks a variety of other use cases.
>
> We respectfully ask Bitcoin Core contributors to prioritize the review
> and integration of CTV (PR #31989 or similar) and CSFS (PR #32247 or
> similar) within the next six months. We believe this timeline allows for
> rigorous final review and activation planning.
>
> This request isn't meant to suggest that these contributors dictate the
> consensus process, but rather it is an acknowledgement that before these
> opcodes can be activated, they must be implemented in the most widely
> used bitcoin client.
>
> As application and protocol developers, we are convinced of the
> significant benefits that these changes would bring to end users of
> bitcoin =E2=80=93 even if only considering their use for layer 1 security=
 and
> layer 2 scaling solutions. We are optimistic that given the limited size
> and scope of these changes in both concept and implementation, they
> represent a realistic next step in the continuing and important work of
> preserving bitcoin's unique promise.
>
> Signed,
>
> Abdel (Starkware)
> Andrew Poelstra (@apoelstra)
> Ben Carman (@benthecarman)
> Ben Kaufman (@ben-kaufman)
> Brandon Black (@reardencode)
> Brian Langel (for Five Bells)
> Buck Perley (@puckberley)
> Calle (Cashu)
> Calvin Kim (@kcalvinalvin)
> Chun Wang (f2pool)
> Christian Decker (@cdecker)
> Coinjoined Chris (Bitsurance.eu)
> Evan Kaloudis (for Zeus)
> fiatjaf (@fiatjaf)
> Floppy (@1440000bytes)
> Gary Krause (@average-gary)
> Harsha Goli (@arshbot)
> Hunter Beast (@cryptoquick)
> Jad Mubaslat (@champbronc2)
> James O=E2=80=99Beirne (@jamesob)
> Jameson Lopp (@jlopp)
> Johan Halseth (@halseth)
> Luke Childs (@lukechilds)
> Matt Black (for Atomic Finance)
> Michael Tidwell (@miketwenty1)
> Nick Hansen (for Luxor Mining)
> Nitesh (@nitesh_btc)
> nvk (@nvk)
> Owen Kemeys (for Foundation)
> Paul Sztorc (@psztorc)
> Portland.HODL (for MARA Pool)
> Rijndael (@rot13maxi)
> Rob Hamilton (@rob1ham)
> Robin Linus (@RobinLinus)
> Sanket Kanjalkar (@sanket1729)
> Sean Ryan (Anchorage)
> Seth for Privacy (for Cake Wallet)
> Simanta Gautam (Alpen Labs)
> Steven Roose (@stevenroose)
> stutxo (@stutxo)
> Talip (@otaliptus)
> mononaut (@mononautical)
> vnprc (@vnprc)
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/a86c2737-db79-4f54-9c1d-51be=
eb765163n%40googlegroups.com
> .
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/035f8b9c-9711-4edb-9d01-bef4=
a96320e1%40roose.io
> .
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/GLGZ3rEDfqaW8jAfIA6ac78uQzjE=
dYQaJf3ER9gd4e-wBXsiS2NK0wAj8LWK8VHf7w6Zru3IKbtDU5NM102jD8wMjjw8y7FmiDtQIy9=
U7Y4%3D%40protonmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/GLGZ3rEDfqaW8jAfIA6ac78uQzj=
EdYQaJf3ER9gd4e-wBXsiS2NK0wAj8LWK8VHf7w6Zru3IKbtDU5NM102jD8wMjjw8y7FmiDtQIy=
9U7Y4%3D%40protonmail.com?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter>
> .
>

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/=
CALiT-Zr3KO0fw1_DCpDVvA1Z1aLrvM-HFtvdsyLKhXxWvR%3DhvA%40mail.gmail.com.

--0000000000009be4ec0637c88fd7
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">I created a wiki page for [use cases][0] in December 2024.=
 It does not include=C2=A0LN SYMMETRY and other things possible when CHECKS=
IGFROMSTACK is used in combination with CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY.<div><br></div>=
<div>I don&#39;t think there&#39;s anything wrong with the language used in=
 the letter or the intentions of those who signed it. The misinterpretation=
 may be genuine or simply an excuse to stall the process for a few more yea=
rs.=C2=A0That said, I had suggested [rephrasing][1] one of the paragraphs t=
o help avoid misunderstanding and keep the focus on technical discussion.<b=
r><br>I really appreciate James O&#39;Beirne for his efforts, as well as th=
e others who signed this letter. Most users prefer public communication abo=
ut soft forks.</div><div><br></div><div>[0]: <a href=3D"https://en.bitcoin.=
it/wiki/Covenants_Uses">https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Covenants_Uses</a><br>[1=
]:=C2=A0<a href=3D"https://github.com/ctv-csfs/ctv-csfs.github.io/issues/15=
">https://github.com/ctv-csfs/ctv-csfs.github.io/issues/15</a><br><br>/dev/=
fd0<br>floppy disk guy</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote=
_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 9=
:03=E2=80=AFPM &#39;Antoine Poinsot&#39; via Bitcoin Development Mailing Li=
st &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoindev@googlegroups.com">bitcoindev@googlegrou=
ps.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"m=
argin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left=
:1ex"><div style=3D"font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px">Steven,</d=
iv><div style=3D"font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><br></div><bl=
ockquote style=3D"border-left:3px solid rgb(200,200,200);border-top-color:r=
gb(200,200,200);border-right-color:rgb(200,200,200);border-bottom-color:rgb=
(200,200,200);padding-left:10px;color:rgb(102,102,102)"><div style=3D"font-=
family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px">I&#39;d like to first express my di=
sappointment with the
      amount of drama this letter has caused.<br></div></blockquote>
<div style=3D"font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px">
    <div>
       =20
            </div>
   =20
            <div>
       =20
            </div>
</div>
<div style=3D"font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><br></div><div s=
tyle=3D"font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px">Likewise. As i mention=
ed earlier i think this bundle of capabilities is worth considering for a u=
se case driven soft fork. I felt like, despite the lack of substantive work=
 on the proposal, we were finally going somewhere in the discussion on exte=
nding Bitcoin&#39;s scripting capabilities.</div><div style=3D"font-family:=
Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><br></div><div style=3D"font-family:Arial,=
sans-serif;font-size:14px">Instead of addressing minor objections to the de=
sign of the operations and working on demonstrating (real) use cases, the c=
hampion chose the route of political pressure on the Bitcoin Core project. =
Signatories backed this approach.<br></div><div style=3D"font-family:Arial,=
sans-serif;font-size:14px"><br></div><div>In changing Bitcoin, the process =
matters as much as the outcome. If Bitcoin can be changed through a shoutin=
g match and on the basis of misleading pseudo use cases, it would be a majo=
r fuck up. Likewise if a suboptimal change can be rammed through without ad=
dressing objections and reasonable requests from the technical community, b=
y bamboozling industry stakeholders into the false dichotomy &quot;it&#39;s=
 either this or ossification&quot;.</div><div><br></div><div>Bitcoin Core c=
annot, in my opinion, facilitate setting such a precedent. Therefore this e=
ffort sets us back a long way in getting a consensus change merged there, a=
nd on the broader path of extending Bitcoin&#39;s scripting functionalities=
 </div><div style=3D"font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;color:rgb(=
0,0,0);background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><br></div><blockquote style=3D"bo=
rder-left:3px solid rgb(200,200,200);border-top-color:rgb(200,200,200);bord=
er-right-color:rgb(200,200,200);border-bottom-color:rgb(200,200,200);paddin=
g-left:10px;color:rgb(102,102,102)"><div>It quite literally merely
      asks Core contributors to put this proposal on their agenda with
      some urgency.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is incorrect=
 and misrepresenting the content of the letter. It specifically asks, i&#39=
;m quoting &quot;integration of CTV (PR <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitco=
in/bitcoin/pull/31989" target=3D"_blank">#31989</a> or similar)&quot;. This=
 is asking Core to merge a pull request implementing a contentious consensu=
s change. And so, not by making the case for it with strong technical argum=
ents but by presenting signatures from industry stakeholders. I trust we <s=
trike>all</strike> both agree it is inadvisable to change the Bitcoin Core =
decision process from making software changes based on objective rough tech=
nical consensus toward making software changes based on the subjective inte=
ntions of whoever has influence in the space at the moment.<br></div><div s=
tyle=3D"font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;color:rgb(0,0,0);backgr=
ound-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><br></div><blockquote style=3D"border-left:3px=
 solid rgb(200,200,200);border-top-color:rgb(200,200,200);border-right-colo=
r:rgb(200,200,200);border-bottom-color:rgb(200,200,200);padding-left:10px;c=
olor:rgb(102,102,102)"><div><span>Given that only a handful of Core contrib=
utors had thus far participated in the conversation on the proposal elsewhe=
re</span><br></div></blockquote><div style=3D"font-family:Arial,sans-serif;=
font-size:14px;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><br></di=
v><div style=3D"font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;color:rgb(0,0,0=
);background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">And pressure to merge code for an obvi=
ously controversial consensus change is a great way to make sure not more o=
f them engage, if lurking at how <a href=3D"https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/ct=
v-csfs-can-we-reach-consensus-on-a-first-step-towards-covenants/1509/37?u=
=3Dantoinep" title=3D"previous CTV discussions went" target=3D"_blank">prev=
ious CTV discussions went</a> wasn&#39;t enough.</div><div><br></div><block=
quote style=3D"border-left:3px solid rgb(200,200,200);border-top-color:rgb(=
200,200,200);border-right-color:rgb(200,200,200);border-bottom-color:rgb(20=
0,200,200);padding-left:10px;color:rgb(102,102,102)"><div>it
      seemed like a suitable next step to communicate that we want Core
      contributors to provide their position within this conversation<br></=
div></blockquote><div style=3D"font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;=
color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><br></div><div style=3D=
"font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-co=
lor:rgb(255,255,255)">How could you ever think it be a &quot;suitable next =
step&quot;? Bitcoin Core contributors spend their days maintaining the exis=
ting Bitcoin network, where making it boringly stable  is success. Asking t=
he project to merge a contentious consensus change, disregarding conceptual=
 review, is just laughable. I don&#39;t see how piling a sign-on letter on =
top of this would improve anything.</div><div style=3D"font-family:Arial,sa=
ns-serif;font-size:14px;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"=
><br></div><div style=3D"font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;color:=
rgb(0,0,0);background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">In conclusion, i would like t=
o state i understand the frustration of this proposal not making progress a=
nd how it led many signatories to get on board with the letter. I do not as=
cribe bad intentions to most of them. However the effect of this letter has=
 been, as could have been expected, a major setback in making progress on t=
his proposal (or more broadly this bundle of capabilities). I am not sure h=
ow we bounce back from this, but it necessarily involves someone standing u=
p and actually doing the work of addressing technical feedback=20
from the community and demonstrating (real) use cases. The way forward must=
 be by building consensus on the basis of strong objective, technical, argu=
ments. Not with a bunch of people stating interest and nobody acting up and=
 helping the proposal move forward.<br></div><div style=3D"font-family:Aria=
l,sans-serif;font-size:14px;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:rgb(255,255,2=
55)"><br></div><div style=3D"font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;co=
lor:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Best,<br>Antoine Poinsot<=
br></div><div>
        On Tuesday, June 17th, 2025 at 7:31 AM, Steven Roose &lt;<a href=3D=
"mailto:steven@roose.io" target=3D"_blank">steven@roose.io</a>&gt; wrote:<b=
r>
        <blockquote type=3D"cite">
           =20
    <p>Hey all</p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <p>I&#39;ve been following the discussion and noticed TXHASH is
      mentioned a lot. As a signer of the letter and author of the
      TXHASH proposal, I&#39;d like to chime in with some thoughts.</p>
    <p>However, I&#39;d like to first express my disappointment with the
      amount of drama this letter has caused. It quite literally merely
      asks Core contributors to put this proposal on their agenda with
      some urgency. No threats, no hard words.<br>
      Given that only a handful of Core contributors had thus far
      participated in the conversation on the proposal elsewhere, it
      seemed like a suitable next step to communicate that we want Core
      contributors to provide their position within this conversation.<br>
      I strongly stand against an approach involving independent
      activation clients and I think the sentiment of this e-mail aligns
      with the preference of having Core be involved in any deployment
      of protocol upgrades.<br>
    </p>
    <p>On the proposal itself. I have heard some mentions of TXHASH and
      why we, as the developer community, wouldn&#39;t go  straight for
      TXHASH.</p>
    <ul>
      <li>I think TXHASH is too far from being ready at this point:<br>
      </li>
      <ul>
        <li>The TXHASH BIP and spec has not had the level of
          review/engagement that I had hoped for. I&#39;m personally pretty
          happy with the result, especially since it only has had
          serious looks from myself and Rearden. But it definitely needs
          a lot more scrutiny. It&#39;s a very opinionated design (I think
          it&#39;s unavoidable for such an opcode), so there is a lot of
          room for making different and maybe better decisions on many
          fronts.</li>
        <li>Once we have the TXHASH semantics, it would be very valuable
          to consider also introducing the same semantics as a top-level
          sighash flag system, so you can spend coins directly with a
          sighash based on TXHASH semantics. (I dubbed this TXSIGHASH
          and I recently did some simulations on how such a construction
          would look for fee sponsoring and stacking
<a href=3D"https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/jit-fees-with-txhash-comparing-opti=
ons-for-sponsorring-and-stacking/1760" rel=3D"noreferrer nofollow noopener"=
 target=3D"_blank">https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/jit-fees-with-txhash-compar=
ing-options-for-sponsorring-and-stacking/1760</a>)</li>
        <li>However, this also invites some additional review of
          possible taproot changes (pay-to-tapscript, re-adding parity
          byte, ..) and will necessarily take some more time for
          consideration and design.<br>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <li>I strongly believe it would benefit development of new bitcoin
        use cases if we would have a simple version of templating and
        rebindable signatures sooner rather than later. Both BitVM and
        Ark are fairly recent ideas that stand to benefit significantly
        from such new functionality, but I think having them actually
        available will invite a lot more engagement leading to new ideas
        and new improvements. These are not use case-specific changes,
        but useful general building blocks.<br>
      </li>
      <li>Both CSFS and CTV are fairly unopinionated opcodes by design,
        when you think of CTV in the sense that it fixes the minimum tx
        fields to ensure txid stability.<br>
      </li>
      <li>I think there is both enough excitement for this proposal and
        there would be enough future excitement for a TXHASH or CCV
        addition that I don&#39;t fear upgrade churn will be a future
        hurdle.</li>
      <li>Even after possible TXHASH activation, I think there will stay
        some demand for the simpler CTV/TEMPLATEHASH variant. It doesn&#39;=
t
        just save a byte on the wire, but thinking in a txid-stable
        model is just more intuitive. I believe that many advanced use
        cases will take advantage from doing things the TXHASH way
        (enabling stacking and cheaper fee sponsoring), but some
        developers will always favor the simplicity of txid stability
        over the benefits of adding complexity.<br>
      </li>
    </ul>
    <p>The above arguments convinced me that an activation based on CTV
      and CSFS makes sense today. We have lots of developers waiting to
      make use of the functionality it enables and we can continue
      development of further changes meanwhile. </p>
    <p>That being said, I&#39;m in no way married to the exact details of
      the proposals.<br>
    </p>
    <ul>
      <li>I am sympathetic to worries of changing legacy/v0 script. I
        failed to convince myself of any valuable usage for bare CTV.</li>
      <li>I am sympathetic to the consideration of revisiting scriptSig
        and annex-related modifications to the template hash.<br>
      </li>
      <li>I am sympathetic to the decision to optimize better for the
        rebindable signature use cases, meaning:<br>
      </li>
      <ul>
        <li>the idea to swap CTV for a TEMPLATEHASH opcode which adds a
          1-byte VERIFY for the template use case but saves 33 bytes for
          the signature use case</li>
        <li>the addition of an INTERNALKEY opcode, saving an additional
          33 bytes for the rebindable signature use case</li>
      </ul>
    </ul>
    All of the above changes I think can be decided on with minimal
    bikeshedding and still encompass the same semantics of the original
    proposal.<br>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <p>Best</p>
    <p>Steven<br>
    </p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <div>On 6/9/25 12:40, James O&#39;Beirne wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type=3D"cite">
     =20
      Good morning,<br>
      <br>
      A letter has been published advocating for the final review and<br>
      activation of OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY (BIP-119) and
      OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK<br>
      (BIP-348). <br>
      <br>
      The full text of the letter can be found at <a href=3D"https://ctv-cs=
fs.com" rel=3D"noreferrer nofollow noopener" target=3D"_blank">https://ctv-=
csfs.com</a>.
      It is<br>
      reproduced below.<br>
      <br>
      ---<br>
      <br>
      To the technical bitcoin community,<br>
      <br>
      We believe that the best next step for bitcoin would be to
      activate<br>
      OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY (CTV, BIP-119) and OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK
      (CSFS,<br>
      BIP-348). These opcodes enable functionality for a broad set of
      uses<br>
      that will allow bitcoin to preserve and expand its role as a
      scarce,<br>
      censorship-resistant store of value.<br>
      <br>
      While there are a few promising proposals to improve bitcoin at
      the<br>
      consensus layer which may someday be deployed, we believe that CTV
      and<br>
      CSFS are uniquely well reviewed, simple, and have been proven to
      be both<br>
      safe and widely demanded.<br>
      <br>
      CTV was first formalized in BIP-119 over 5 years ago. Despite many<br=
>
      attempts at refinement or replacement, it has remained the most
      widely<br>
      preferred method for enforcing pregenerated transaction sequences
      using<br>
      consensus. It unlocks valuable functionality for scaling
      solutions,<br>
      vaults, congestion control, non-custodial mining, discreet log<br>
      contracts, and more.<br>
      <br>
      CSFS is a primitive opcode that has been deployed to Blockstream=E2=
=80=99s<br>
      Elements for at least 8 years. It represents no significant<br>
      computational burden over bitcoin=E2=80=99s most often used opcode,
      OP_CHECKSIG.<br>
      It can be combined with CTV to implement ln-symmetry, a
      longstanding<br>
      improvement to Lightning. It also unlocks a variety of other use
      cases.<br>
      <br>
      We respectfully ask Bitcoin Core contributors to prioritize the
      review<br>
      and integration of CTV (PR #31989 or similar) and CSFS (PR #32247
      or<br>
      similar) within the next six months. We believe this timeline
      allows for<br>
      rigorous final review and activation planning.<br>
      <br>
      This request isn&#39;t meant to suggest that these contributors
      dictate the<br>
      consensus process, but rather it is an acknowledgement that before
      these<br>
      opcodes can be activated, they must be implemented in the most
      widely<br>
      used bitcoin client.<br>
      <br>
      As application and protocol developers, we are convinced of the<br>
      significant benefits that these changes would bring to end users
      of<br>
      bitcoin =E2=80=93 even if only considering their use for layer 1 secu=
rity
      and<br>
      layer 2 scaling solutions. We are optimistic that given the
      limited size<br>
      and scope of these changes in both concept and implementation,
      they<br>
      represent a realistic next step in the continuing and important
      work of<br>
      preserving bitcoin&#39;s unique promise.<br>
      <br>
      Signed, <br>
      <br>
      Abdel (Starkware)<br>
      Andrew Poelstra (@apoelstra)<br>
      Ben Carman (@benthecarman)<br>
      Ben Kaufman (@ben-kaufman)<br>
      Brandon Black (@reardencode)<br>
      Brian Langel (for Five Bells)<br>
      Buck Perley (@puckberley)<br>
      Calle (Cashu)<br>
      Calvin Kim (@kcalvinalvin)<br>
      Chun Wang (f2pool)<br>
      Christian Decker (@cdecker)<br>
      Coinjoined Chris (Bitsurance.eu)<br>
      Evan Kaloudis (for Zeus)<br>
      fiatjaf (@fiatjaf)<br>
      Floppy (@1440000bytes)<br>
      Gary Krause (@average-gary)<br>
      Harsha Goli (@arshbot)<br>
      Hunter Beast (@cryptoquick)<br>
      Jad Mubaslat (@champbronc2)<br>
      James O=E2=80=99Beirne (@jamesob)<br>
      Jameson Lopp (@jlopp)<br>
      Johan Halseth (@halseth)<br>
      Luke Childs (@lukechilds)<br>
      Matt Black (for Atomic Finance)<br>
      Michael Tidwell (@miketwenty1)<br>
      Nick Hansen (for Luxor Mining)<br>
      Nitesh (@nitesh_btc)<br>
      nvk (@nvk)<br>
      Owen Kemeys (for Foundation)<br>
      Paul Sztorc (@psztorc)<br>
      Portland.HODL (for MARA Pool)<br>
      Rijndael (@rot13maxi)<br>
      Rob Hamilton (@rob1ham)<br>
      Robin Linus (@RobinLinus)<br>
      Sanket Kanjalkar (@sanket1729)<br>
      Sean Ryan (Anchorage)<br>
      Seth for Privacy (for Cake Wallet)<br>
      Simanta Gautam (Alpen Labs)<br>
      Steven Roose (@stevenroose)<br>
      stutxo (@stutxo)<br>
      Talip (@otaliptus)<br>
      mononaut (@mononautical)<br>
      vnprc (@vnprc)<br>
      <br>
      -- <br>
      You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
      Groups &quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List&quot; group.<br>
      To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
      send an email to <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroup=
s.com" rel=3D"noreferrer nofollow noopener" target=3D"_blank">bitcoindev+un=
subscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
      To view this discussion visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/=
msgid/bitcoindev/a86c2737-db79-4f54-9c1d-51beeb765163n%40googlegroups.com" =
rel=3D"noreferrer nofollow noopener" target=3D"_blank">https://groups.googl=
e.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/a86c2737-db79-4f54-9c1d-51beeb765163n%40googlegrou=
ps.com</a>.<br>
    </blockquote>
 =20


<p></p>

-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List&quot; group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com" rel=3D"n=
oreferrer nofollow noopener" target=3D"_blank">bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googl=
egroups.com</a>.<br>
To view this discussion visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/=
bitcoindev/035f8b9c-9711-4edb-9d01-bef4a96320e1%40roose.io" rel=3D"noreferr=
er nofollow noopener" target=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/b=
itcoindev/035f8b9c-9711-4edb-9d01-bef4a96320e1%40roose.io</a>.<br>

        </blockquote><br>
    </div>

<p></p>

-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List&quot; group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com" target=
=3D"_blank">bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To view this discussion visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/=
bitcoindev/GLGZ3rEDfqaW8jAfIA6ac78uQzjEdYQaJf3ER9gd4e-wBXsiS2NK0wAj8LWK8VHf=
7w6Zru3IKbtDU5NM102jD8wMjjw8y7FmiDtQIy9U7Y4%3D%40protonmail.com?utm_medium=
=3Demail&amp;utm_source=3Dfooter" target=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.c=
om/d/msgid/bitcoindev/GLGZ3rEDfqaW8jAfIA6ac78uQzjEdYQaJf3ER9gd4e-wBXsiS2NK0=
wAj8LWK8VHf7w6Zru3IKbtDU5NM102jD8wMjjw8y7FmiDtQIy9U7Y4%3D%40protonmail.com<=
/a>.<br>
</blockquote></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">bitcoind=
ev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To view this discussion visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/=
bitcoindev/CALiT-Zr3KO0fw1_DCpDVvA1Z1aLrvM-HFtvdsyLKhXxWvR%3DhvA%40mail.gma=
il.com?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter">https://groups.google.com/d/=
msgid/bitcoindev/CALiT-Zr3KO0fw1_DCpDVvA1Z1aLrvM-HFtvdsyLKhXxWvR%3DhvA%40ma=
il.gmail.com</a>.<br />

--0000000000009be4ec0637c88fd7--