Jeremy Rubin [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2022-05-03 📝 Original message:Antoine, One high level ...
📅 Original date posted:2022-05-03
📝 Original message:Antoine,
One high level reason to not prefer APO is that it gets 'dangerously close'
to fully recursive covenants.
E.g., just by tweaking APO to use a Schnorr signature without PK
commitment, Pubkey Recovery would be possible, and fully recursive
covenants could be done.
Short of that type of modification, you can still do a "trusted setup" key
deletion covenant with APO and have a fully recursive covenant set up. E.g.
<1 || N-N MuSig> APO
where the N-N MuSig pregenerates a signature of a transaction that commits
to an output with itself, e.g., using SIGHASH_SINGLE.
By itself, this is not super useful, but does create the type of thing that
people might worry about with a recursive covenant since after
initialization it is autonomous.
One use case for this might be, for example, a spacechain backbone that
infinitely iterates, so it isn't entirely useless.
If other opcodes are added, such as OP_IN_OUT_AMOUNT, then you can get all
sorts of recursive covenant interesting stuff on top of that, since you
could pre-sign e.g. for a quanitzed vault a number of different
deposit/withdraw programs as well as increasing balances depending on
timeout waited.
Therefore, I think reasonable people might discriminate the "complexity
class" of the design space available with just CTV v.s. APO.
In contrast, the approach of smaller independent steps:
1) Adding CTV
2) Adding CSFS (enables APO-like behavior, sufficient for Eltoo)
3) Adding flags to CTV, similar to TXHASH, or just adding TXHASH (enables
full covenants)
4) Ergonomic OPCodes for covenants like TLUV, EcTweak, MAST building, etc
(enables efficient covenants)
is a much more granular path where we are able to cleanly 'level up' into
each covenant complexity class only if we deem it to be safe.
<redacted>comment about timelines to produce a modified APO</redacted>
Best,
Jeremy
--
@JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>;
On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 4:23 AM darosior via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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-message
> .
>
> [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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220503/b53717e0/attachment-0001.html>;
📝 Original message:Antoine,
One high level reason to not prefer APO is that it gets 'dangerously close'
to fully recursive covenants.
E.g., just by tweaking APO to use a Schnorr signature without PK
commitment, Pubkey Recovery would be possible, and fully recursive
covenants could be done.
Short of that type of modification, you can still do a "trusted setup" key
deletion covenant with APO and have a fully recursive covenant set up. E.g.
<1 || N-N MuSig> APO
where the N-N MuSig pregenerates a signature of a transaction that commits
to an output with itself, e.g., using SIGHASH_SINGLE.
By itself, this is not super useful, but does create the type of thing that
people might worry about with a recursive covenant since after
initialization it is autonomous.
One use case for this might be, for example, a spacechain backbone that
infinitely iterates, so it isn't entirely useless.
If other opcodes are added, such as OP_IN_OUT_AMOUNT, then you can get all
sorts of recursive covenant interesting stuff on top of that, since you
could pre-sign e.g. for a quanitzed vault a number of different
deposit/withdraw programs as well as increasing balances depending on
timeout waited.
Therefore, I think reasonable people might discriminate the "complexity
class" of the design space available with just CTV v.s. APO.
In contrast, the approach of smaller independent steps:
1) Adding CTV
2) Adding CSFS (enables APO-like behavior, sufficient for Eltoo)
3) Adding flags to CTV, similar to TXHASH, or just adding TXHASH (enables
full covenants)
4) Ergonomic OPCodes for covenants like TLUV, EcTweak, MAST building, etc
(enables efficient covenants)
is a much more granular path where we are able to cleanly 'level up' into
each covenant complexity class only if we deem it to be safe.
<redacted>comment about timelines to produce a modified APO</redacted>
Best,
Jeremy
--
@JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>;
On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 4:23 AM darosior via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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-message
> .
>
> [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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220503/b53717e0/attachment-0001.html>;