{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","title":"pushd [ARCHIVE] wrote","author_name":"pushd [ARCHIVE] (npub10p…5pm6u)","author_url":"https://yabu.me/npub10pnw8ycq59uep57cs2z7tl3yuqvmph7aj0pzp3ks9ansjkh47u8q95pm6u","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://yabu.me","html":"📅 Original date posted:2022-04-22\n📝 Original message:\u003e I would like to know people's sentiment about doing (a very slightly tweaked version of) BIP118 in place of (or before doing) BIP119.\n\nNACK for the below reasons:\n\n- Premature idea\n- I do not find use cases interesting\n- We are still in research phase of implementing covenants in bitcoin and looking for the best proposal\n- Taproot soft fork was recently activated and its too soon\n- Not enough documentation available\n- Could not find any pull request in core for BIP 118 that can be reviewed\n- Not enough tools available for testing\n\npushd\n---\n\nparallel lines meet at infinity?\n\n------- Original Message -------\nOn Friday, April 22nd, 2022 at 5:30 PM, bitcoin-dev-request at lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:\n\n\u003e Send bitcoin-dev mailing list submissions to\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\n\u003e To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to\n\u003e bitcoin-dev-request at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\n\u003e You can reach the person managing the list at\n\u003e bitcoin-dev-owner at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\n\u003e When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific\n\u003e than \"Re: Contents of bitcoin-dev digest...\"\n\u003e\n\u003e Today's Topics:\n\u003e\n\u003e 1. ANYPREVOUT in place of CTV (darosior)\n\u003e\n\u003e ----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e\n\u003e Message: 1\n\u003e Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 11:11:41 +0000\n\u003e From: darosior darosior at protonmail.com\n\u003e\n\u003e To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\n\u003e Subject: [bitcoin-dev] ANYPREVOUT in place of CTV\n\u003e Message-ID:\n\u003e p3P0m2_aNXd-4oYhFjCKJyI8zQXahmZed6bv7lnj9M9HbP9gMqMtJr-pP7XRAPs-rn_fJuGu1cv9ero5i8f0cvyZrMXYPzPx17CxJ2ZSvRk=@protonmail.com\n\u003e\n\u003e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8\n\u003e\n\u003e I would like to know people's sentiment about doing (a very slightly tweaked version of) BIP118 in place of\n\u003e (or before doing) BIP119.\n\u003e\n\u003e SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT and its precedent iterations have been discussed for over 6 years. It presents proven and\n\u003e implemented usecases, that are demanded and (please someone correct me if i'm wrong) more widely accepted than\n\u003e CTV's.\n\u003e\n\u003e SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUTANYSCRIPT, if its \"ANYONECANPAY\" behaviour is made optional [0], can emulate CTV just fine.\n\u003e Sure then you can't have bare or Segwit v0 CTV, and it's a bit more expensive to use. But we can consider CTV\n\u003e an optimization of APO-AS covenants.\n\u003e\n\u003e CTV advocates have been presenting vaults as the flagship usecase. Although as someone who've been trying to\n\u003e implement practical vaults for the past 2 years i doubt CTV is necessary nor sufficient for this (but still\n\u003e useful!), using APO-AS covers it. And it's not a couple dozen more virtual bytes that are going to matter for\n\u003e a potential vault user.\n\u003e\n\u003e If after some time all of us who are currently dubious about CTV's stated usecases are proven wrong by onchain\n\u003e usage of a less efficient construction to achieve the same goal, we could roll-out CTV as an optimization. In\n\u003e the meantime others will have been able to deploy new applications leveraging ANYPREVOUT (Eltoo, blind\n\u003e statechains, etc..[1]).\n\u003e\n\u003e Given the interest in, and demand for, both simple covenants and better offchain protocols it seems to me that\n\u003e BIP118 is a soft fork candidate that could benefit more (if not most of) Bitcoin users.\n\u003e Actually i'd also be interested in knowing if people would oppose the APO-AS part of BIP118, since it enables\n\u003e CTV's features, for the same reason they'd oppose BIP119.\n\u003e\n\u003e [0] That is, to not commit to the other inputs of the transaction (via sha_sequences and maybe also\n\u003e sha_amounts). Cf https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0118.mediawiki#signature-message.\n\u003e\n\u003e [1] https://anyprevout.xyz/ \"Use Cases\" section\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------\n\u003e\n\u003e Subject: Digest Footer\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------\n\u003e\n\u003e End of bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 83, Issue 40\n\u003e *******************************************\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220422/303a4052/attachment-0001.html\u003e"}