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
|
Return-Path: <aj@erisian.com.au>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24F54C002D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 24 Jun 2022 06:06:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDF804042B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 24 Jun 2022 06:06:15 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org EDF804042B
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001,
UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 8rHN9j8qAVmu
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 24 Jun 2022 06:06:15 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 2E50A4032E
Received: from azure.erisian.com.au (azure.erisian.com.au [172.104.61.193])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E50A4032E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 24 Jun 2022 06:06:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from aj@azure.erisian.com.au (helo=sapphire.erisian.com.au)
by azure.erisian.com.au with esmtpsa (Exim 4.92 #3 (Debian))
id 1o4cSH-0005uv-MU; Fri, 24 Jun 2022 16:06:11 +1000
Received: by sapphire.erisian.com.au (sSMTP sendmail emulation);
Fri, 24 Jun 2022 16:06:05 +1000
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 16:06:05 +1000
From: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <20220624060605.GC5322@erisian.com.au>
References: <87h75xoet1.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87h75xoet1.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
X-Spam-Score-int: -18
X-Spam-Bar: -
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [PROPOSAL] OP_TX: generalized covenants reduced
to OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY
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, 24 Jun 2022 06:06:16 -0000
On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 08:05:54PM +0930, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> OPTX_SEPARATELY: treat fields separately (vs concatenating)
> OPTX_UNHASHED: push on the stack without hashing (vs SHA256 before push)
> OPTX_SELECT_OUTPUT_AMOUNT32x2*: sats out, as a high-low u31 pair
> OPTX_SELECT_OUTPUT_SCRIPTPUBKEY*: output scriptpubkey
Doing random pie-in-the-sky contract design, I had a case where I
wanted to be able to say "update the CTV hash from commiting to outputs
[A,B,C,D,E] to outputs [A,B,X,D,E]". The approach above and the one CTV
takes are somewhat awkward for that:
* you have to include all of A,B,D,E in order to generate both hashes,
which seems less efficient than a merkle path
* proving that you're taking an output in its entirety, rather than,
say, the last 12 bytes of C and the first 30 bytes of D, seems hard.
Again, it seems like a merkle path would be better?
This is more of an upgradability concern I think -- ie, only relevant if
additional features like CAT or TLUV or similar are added; but both OP_TX
and CTV seem to be trying to take upgradability into account in advance,
so I thought this was worth raising.
Cheers,
aj
|
