> The client has a Speedy trial release similar to Taproots with parameters
> proposed to be
As I've said before I was hoping we'd avoid this exercise. Best case, it wastes
the time of people who could be working on all sorts of valuable projects for
the ecosystem. Worst case, we take a Rus
> I didn't think DROP/1 is necessary here? Doesn't leaving the 32 byte hash
on the stack evaluate as true?
Not with Taproot's CLEANSTACK rule. It can make sense to always use `DROP
OP_1` even outside of Taproot, just to keep things consistent and to avoid
potential errors when switching from non-T
Dear Michael,
Firstly, I think it is great that you do share enthusiasm for "vaults, eltoo
constructions, payment pools etc". Many people see covenants (or covenant-like
features) as one of the most important upgrades currently in the pipe line
because it enables so many important use cases and
Hi AJ,
Long time listener first time caller here.
All merits (or lack thereof depending on your view) of CTV aside, I find this
topic around decision making both interesting and important. While I think I
sympathize with the high level concern about making sure there are use cases,
interest, and
Hi Robin
I was in two minds to respond because I feel I am just repeating myself from
previous emails to this list [1], [2], [3]. I'm not sure whether you have read
those posts or are just blocking them out because you disagree with them. I
also don't think much (anything?) has changed since I
Hi Michael,
Thank you for your reply. You wrote:
> I have a better (and safer) way forward which is to continue to build out use
> cases of CTV, convince the community it is the best tool for the job
> (whatever use case(s) that is), compare it to other existing covenant
> enabling proposals o
Ok last one. Whatever you say and whatever personal attacks you come up with
I'm not responding after this one :)
> Where can I see the use cases you have built out in recent years? Do you have
> a writeup in which you compare CTV to existing covenant enabling proposals?
> Do you have a strong
Hi all,
The main criticisms I'm aware of against CTV seem to be along the
following lines:
1. Usage, either:
a. It won't receive significant real-world usage, or
b. It will be used but we'll end up using something better later
2. An unused CTV will need to be supported forever, creating ex
1-2 can be mitigated to some extent by encoding an expiry height in the
address (and pubkey?), and honouring CTV for UTXOs during the active period.
It might take longer to remove CTV code post-deactivation, but that's simply
a tradeoff to consider.
The bigger issue with CTV is the miner-decisi
On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 08:05:36PM +0300, Nadav Ivgi via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > I didn't think DROP/1 is necessary here? Doesn't leaving the 32 byte hash
> on the stack evaluate as true?
> Not with Taproot's CLEANSTACK rule.
The CLEANSTACK rule is the same for segwit and tapscript though?
For p
On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 05:13:19PM +, Buck O Perley via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> All merits (or lack thereof depending on your view) of CTV aside, I find this
> topic around decision making both interesting and important. While I think I
> sympathize with the high level concern about making sure
On Thursday 21 April 2022 03:10:02 alicexbt wrote:
> @DavidHarding
>
> Interesting proposal to revert consensus changes. Is it possible to do this
> for soft forks that are already activated?
Generally, no. Reverting a softfork without a built-in expiry would be a
hardfork.
> Example: Some users
Probably merits a more thorough response, but, I wanted to respond on the
framework above:
1a) can you make transactions using the new feature with bitcoin-cli,
eg createrawtransaction etc? (*YES)*
since ~Feb 2020, this has existed:
https://github.com/JeremyRubin/bitcoin/tree/checktemplate
> While reverting Segwit wouldn't be possible, it IS entirely possible to
do an
> additional softfork to either weigh witness data at the full 4 WU/Byte
rate
> (same as other data), or to reduce the total weight limit so as to extend
the
> witness discount to non-segwit transactions (so scriptSig i
Missed one for part 2:
Shesek's social recovery wallet using CTV to enforce timelocks without
expiry, using his Minsc toolchain:
https://twitter.com/shesek/status/1511619296367153153
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1B59CdMIXW-wSW6CaLSgo7y4kvgrEwVgfY14IW2XV_MA/edit#slide=id.g1235f9ffb79_0_8
On Thursday 21 April 2022 06:20:15 Jeremy Rubin wrote:
> > While reverting Segwit wouldn't be possible, it IS entirely possible to
> > do an additional softfork to either weigh witness data at the full 4
> > WU/Byte rate (same as other data), or to reduce the total weight limit so
> > as to extend
16 matches
Mail list logo
