Mention explicitly that CTV does not commit to inputs #1475

1. 
   OrfeasLitos commented at 9:59 pm on July 10, 2023: contributor
2. Mention explicitly what CTV leaves uncommitted 01776f6f18
3. luke-jr added the label Proposed BIP modification on Jul 18, 2023
4. 
   luke-jr commented at 0:40 am on July 18, 2023: member

   @JeremyRubin
5. 
   JeremyRubin commented at 6:07 am on July 18, 2023: contributor

   Leaning towards nack, there’s an infinitude of things not committed to, it’s better to read the spec of what is comitted.

   On Mon, Jul 17, 2023, 8:40 PM Luke Dashjr @.***> wrote:

   @JeremyRubin https://github.com/JeremyRubin

   — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1475#issuecomment-1639103997, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAGYN63VLF6X3WU6B2TIEFDXQXLOXANCNFSM6AAAAAA2FD66ME . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

6. 
   OrfeasLitos commented at 9:09 am on July 18, 2023: contributor

   CTV is a template (as opposed to a full specification) precisely because it doesn’t commit to the inputs. Input omission is one of the central design drivers of CTV, IIUC.

   This change adds crucial intermediate-level intuition, which now the reader can only glean by a tedious process of elimination.

7. 
   JeremyRubin commented at 7:49 pm on July 26, 2023: contributor

   The BIP currently has this text:

   The set of data committed to is a superset of data which can impact the TXID of the transaction, other than the inputs.

8. 
   OrfeasLitos commented at 9:44 am on July 27, 2023: contributor

   It’s tucked away halfway through the document though, after the specification. Also IMO this particular phrasing and the surrounding text does not highlight enough why leaving inputs out is one of the keys to CTV.

   If there is an intention for the BIP to be readable by folks with less than full Bitcoin expertise, this central design choice should be mentioned together with other central design decisions, early on and clearly, not relegated with other implementation details.

   I believe that making this technical document more accessible to a wider audience with little touches like the one proposed here will attract more supporters and help to expedite CTV adoption.

9. 
   JeremyRubin commented at 2:18 pm on July 27, 2023: contributor

   I’ll defer this decision to the editing team, I don’t really know who or what audience bips are ultimately for.

   The change at least seems accurate to me

   On Thu, Jul 27, 2023, 5:44 AM Orfeas Stefanos Thyfronitis Litos < @.***> wrote:

   It’s tucked away halfway through the document though, after the specification. Also IMO this particular phrasing and the surrounding text does not highlight enough why leaving inputs out is one of the keys to CTV.

   If there is an intention for the BIP to be readable by folks with less than full Bitcoin expertise, this central design choice should be mentioned together with other central design decisions, early on and clearly, not relegated with other implementation details.

   I believe that making this technical document more accessible to a wider audience with little touches like the one proposed here will attract more supporters and help to expedite CTV adoption.

   — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1475#issuecomment-1653270008, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAGYN67ZSPK7F22ATADCDZDXSI2AHANCNFSM6AAAAAA2FD66ME . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

10. 
    jonatack commented at 1:48 am on April 27, 2024: contributor

    I agree with the BIP author, and more importantly, I doubt that an editor would merge this when the author is reluctant. Thank you for your suggestion, but let’s not spend further time here.
11. jonatack closed this on Apr 27, 2024

    ---

Contributors
OrfeasLitos luke-jr JeremyRubin jonatack

Labels
Proposed BIP modification