rich1.0pushd [ARCHIVE] (npub10p…5pm6u)https://yabu.me/npub10pnw8ycq59uep57cs2z7tl3yuqvmph7aj0pzp3ks9ansjkh47u8q95pm6unjumphttps://yabu.me📅 Original date posted:2022-04-22 📝 Original message:Hi Luke, > But none of this ST nonsense, please. That alone is a reason to oppose it. Agree. Any soft fork that uses only speedy trial should be opposed. There are few other reasons to oppose it as well: - Premature idea - Use cases are not interesting for all users - We are still in research phase of implementing covenants in bitcoin and looking for the best proposal - Taproot soft fork was recently activated and its too soon - Not enough documentation available - Could not find any pull request in core for BIP 118 that can be reviewed - Not enough tools available for testing I am planning to maintain a page for all the NACKs against BIP 118 based on this thread. I am assuming you don't mind including your name in it. pushd --- parallel lines meet at infinity? > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 17:01:14 +0000 > From: Luke Dashjr luke at dashjr.org > > To: bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org, darosior > darosior at protonmail.com > > Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] ANYPREVOUT in place of CTV > Message-ID: 202204221701.15307.luke at dashjr.org > > Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > 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 > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > ------------------------------ > > End of bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 83, Issue 42 > ******************************************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220422/608937c7/attachment.html>