rich1.0Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] (npub1tf…rfq0n)https://yabu.me/npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0nnjumphttps://yabu.me📅 Original date posted:2022-04-22 📝 Original message:There's no reason for before/after/in place. We have version bits specifically so we can have multiple deployments in parallel. But none of this ST nonsense, please. That alone is a reason to oppose it. Luke On Friday 22 April 2022 11:11:41 darosior via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I would like to know people's sentiment about doing (a very slightly > tweaked version of) BIP118 in place of (or before doing) BIP119. > > SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT and its precedent iterations have been discussed for > over 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 > optional [0], can emulate CTV just fine. 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 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 nor 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 > usecases are proven wrong by onchain usage of a less efficient construction > to achieve the same goal, we could roll-out CTV as an optimization. In the > meantime others will have been able to deploy new applications leveraging > ANYPREVOUT (Eltoo, blind statechains, etc..[1]). > > > Given the interest in, and demand for, both simple covenants and better > offchain protocols it seems to me that BIP118 is a soft fork candidate that > could benefit more (if not most of) Bitcoin users. Actually i'd also be > interested in knowing if people would oppose the APO-AS 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.mediawiki#signature-me >ssage. > > [1] https://anyprevout.xyz/ "Use Cases" section > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev