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
|
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 5BA88C000E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 5 Jul 2021 05:32:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 279E340168
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 5 Jul 2021 05:32:43 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 kzmZ18gInCw3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 5 Jul 2021 05:32:42 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: delayed 00:28:08 by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from azure.erisian.com.au (cerulean.erisian.com.au [139.162.42.226])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FD37400B5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 5 Jul 2021 05:32:42 +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 1m0GmQ-0000of-IX; Mon, 05 Jul 2021 15:04:29 +1000
Received: by sapphire.erisian.com.au (sSMTP sendmail emulation);
Mon, 05 Jul 2021 15:04:21 +1000
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2021 15:04:21 +1000
From: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
To: Russell O'Connor <roconnor@blockstream.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <20210705050421.GA31145@erisian.com.au>
References: <CAD5xwhjmu-Eee47Ho5eA6E6+aAdnchLU0OVZo=RTHaXnN17x8A@mail.gmail.com>
<20210704011341.ddbiruuomqovrjn6@ganymede>
<CAD5xwhimPBEV_tLpSPxs9B+XGUhvPx_dnhok=8=hyksyi4=B6g@mail.gmail.com>
<20210704203230.37hlpdyzr4aijiet@ganymede>
<5keA_aPvmCO5yBh_mBQ6Z5SwnnvEW0T-3vahesaDh57f-qv4FbG1SFAzDvT3rFhre6kFl282VsxV_pynwn_CdvF7fzH2q9NW1ZQHPH1pmdo=@protonmail.com>
<CAMZUoKnVLRLgL1rcq8DYHRjM--8VEUC5kjUbzbY5S860QSbk5w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMZUoKnVLRLgL1rcq8DYHRjM--8VEUC5kjUbzbY5S860QSbk5w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
X-Spam-Score-int: -18
X-Spam-Bar: -
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unlimited covenants,
was Re: CHECKSIGFROMSTACK/{Verify} BIP for Bitcoin
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: Mon, 05 Jul 2021 05:32:43 -0000
On Sun, Jul 04, 2021 at 09:02:25PM -0400, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Bear in mind that when people are talking about enabling covenants, we are
> talking about whether OP_CAT should be allowed or not.
In some sense multisig *alone* enables recursive covenants: a government
that wants to enforce KYC can require that funds be deposited into
a multisig of "2 <recipient> <gov_key> 2 CHECKMULTISIG", and that
"recipient" has gone through KYC. Once deposited to such an address,
the gov can refus to sign with gov_key unless the funds are being spent
to a new address that follows the same rules.
(That's also more efficient than an explicit covenant since it's all
off-chain -- recipient/gov_key can jointly sign via taproot/MuSig at
that point, so that full nodes are only validating a single pubkey and
signature per spend, rather than having to do analysis of whatever the
underlying covenant is supposed to be [0])
This is essentially what Liquid already does -- it locks bitcoins into
a multisig and enforces an "off-chain" covenant that those bitcoins can
only be redeemed after some valid set of signatures are entered into
the Liquid blockchain. Likewise for the various BTC-on-Ethereum tokens.
To some extent, likewise for coins held in exchanges/custodial wallets
where funds can be transferred between customers off-chain.
You can "escape" from that recursive covenant by having the government
(or Liquid functionaries, or exchange admins) change their signing
policy of course; but you could equally escape any consensus-enforced
covenant by having a hard fork to stop doing consensus-enforcement (cf
ETH Classic?). To me, that looks more like a difference of procedure
and difficulty, rather than a fundamental difference in kind.
Cheers,
aj
[0] https://twitter.com/pwuille/status/1411533549224693762
|
