Salvatore Ingala [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2023-08-09 🗒️ Summary of this message: The author ...
📅 Original date posted:2023-08-09
🗒️ Summary of this message: The author thanks Johan for their comments and implementation. They discuss the ordering of parameters and the use cases for the deferred output amount check in CCV.
📝 Original message:
Hi Johan,
Thanks a lot for the comments, and the independent implementation!
> - For the opcode parameter ordering, it feels unnatural for the two
> tweaks (data, taptree) to be separated by the internal key. A more
> natural ordering of parameters IMO would be (of course this is all
> subjective):
> <data> <taptree> <internalkey> <index> <flags> OP_CCV.
>
> If you disagree, I would love some rationale for the ordering you
> chose! (looks like you also changed it again after your last post?).
The main concern for the reordering was to put <data> at the bottom,
as that's typically passed via the witness stack.
I put the <index> right next, as I suspect there are use cases for
specifying via the witness what is the input index where a certain
(CCV-encumbered) UTXO is to be found, or which output should funds
be sent to, instead of hard-coding this in the script. This might
help in designing contracts that are more flexible in the way they
are spent, for example by allowing batching their transactions.
Instead, I expect the other parameters to almost always be hardcoded,
or propagated from the current input with the <-1> special values.
I agree that your ordering is more aesthetically pleasing, though.
> I'm wondering what other use cases you had in mind for the deferred
> output amount check? Maybe I have missed something, but if not it
> would perhaps be better to leave out the amount preservation check, or
> go the extra mile and propose a more powerful amount introspection
> machinery.
Yes, the deferred output amount check is not enough for coinpools;
however, it comes at no cost if we have a <flags> parameter anyway,
as OP_2 (value for CCV_IGNORE_OUTPUT_AMOUNT) is a single byte opcode.
The intent of preserving amounts for many-to-one contracts (vaults),
or the one-to-one cases (channels, any 2-party contract, etc.) seems
common enough to deserve 1 bit in the flags, IMHO.
Efforts to define and add explicit introspection to cover your
(exciting!) use cases can proceed independently, but I don't think
they would nullify the advantages of this (optional) feature of CCV.
Best,
Salvatore
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230809/72053c9c/attachment.html>;
🗒️ Summary of this message: The author thanks Johan for their comments and implementation. They discuss the ordering of parameters and the use cases for the deferred output amount check in CCV.
📝 Original message:
Hi Johan,
Thanks a lot for the comments, and the independent implementation!
> - For the opcode parameter ordering, it feels unnatural for the two
> tweaks (data, taptree) to be separated by the internal key. A more
> natural ordering of parameters IMO would be (of course this is all
> subjective):
> <data> <taptree> <internalkey> <index> <flags> OP_CCV.
>
> If you disagree, I would love some rationale for the ordering you
> chose! (looks like you also changed it again after your last post?).
The main concern for the reordering was to put <data> at the bottom,
as that's typically passed via the witness stack.
I put the <index> right next, as I suspect there are use cases for
specifying via the witness what is the input index where a certain
(CCV-encumbered) UTXO is to be found, or which output should funds
be sent to, instead of hard-coding this in the script. This might
help in designing contracts that are more flexible in the way they
are spent, for example by allowing batching their transactions.
Instead, I expect the other parameters to almost always be hardcoded,
or propagated from the current input with the <-1> special values.
I agree that your ordering is more aesthetically pleasing, though.
> I'm wondering what other use cases you had in mind for the deferred
> output amount check? Maybe I have missed something, but if not it
> would perhaps be better to leave out the amount preservation check, or
> go the extra mile and propose a more powerful amount introspection
> machinery.
Yes, the deferred output amount check is not enough for coinpools;
however, it comes at no cost if we have a <flags> parameter anyway,
as OP_2 (value for CCV_IGNORE_OUTPUT_AMOUNT) is a single byte opcode.
The intent of preserving amounts for many-to-one contracts (vaults),
or the one-to-one cases (channels, any 2-party contract, etc.) seems
common enough to deserve 1 bit in the flags, IMHO.
Efforts to define and add explicit introspection to cover your
(exciting!) use cases can proceed independently, but I don't think
they would nullify the advantages of this (optional) feature of CCV.
Best,
Salvatore
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20230809/72053c9c/attachment.html>;