Mention more BIP 448 benefits, compare it with APO #2255

pull OrfeasLitos wants to merge 4 commits into bitcoin:master from OrfeasLitos:compare-448-with-118 changing 1 files +12 −0

OrfeasLitos commented at 2:56 AM on August 14, 2026: contributor
- Mention delegation and DLC optimisation
- Mention that it provides building blocks for future updates
- Compare with APO that doesn't offer the above
Thanks cmp_ancp for the pointers.

Mention more BIP 448 benefits, compare it with APO

- Mention delegation and DLC optimisation
- Mention that it provides building blocks for future updates
- Compare with APO that doesn't offer the above

a818c05065

jonatack added the label Proposed BIP modification on Aug 14, 2026
jonatack added the label Pending acceptance on Aug 14, 2026
kimdavid19 commented at 7:39 AM on August 14, 2026: none
- Hello I am available to work

in bip-0448.md:74 in a818c05065

  69 | @@ -67,6 +70,10 @@ an increased risk surface, notably in terms of implementation complexity. As the
  70 |  demonstrated to enable new important use cases or substantially improve existing ones beyond this proposal, we favour
  71 |  the minimal approach.
  72 |  
  73 | +[BIP 118 `SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT`][apo-bip] also enables rebindable signatures and their applications. However, as a less
  74 | +modular operation, it does not enable delegation, optimize DLCs, or can serve as a building block for further soft

jonatack commented at 1:56 PM on August 14, 2026:

The sentence construction of "it does not" ... "or can serve" does not seem clear.

OrfeasLitos commented at 4:25 PM on August 14, 2026:

Clarified, PTAL @jonatack

jonatack commented at 4:57 PM on August 14, 2026:

Much clearer, thank you, provided the BIP authors agree with the change.

jonatack commented at 1:58 PM on August 14, 2026: member

Unsure whether these changes are worth pinging the BIP authors to look at, cc @darosior.
Clarify phrasing 12e4e450bc
murchandamus commented at 9:27 PM on August 17, 2026: member

cc: @instagibbs, @stevenroose
darosior changes_requested
darosior commented at 8:18 PM on September 1, 2026: member

Thanks for the improvement suggestions.

We are aware of the optimizations BIP 446 brings to DLCs, as mentioned there. But i personally do not consider it a strong enough motivation for the bundle to be worth mentioning, since performance does not appear to be the reason behind the lack of traction for non-custodial trading.

A comparison to APO in the rationale section would probably be good to have, but it's more complicated than it being strictly less modular. For instance, the sighash flags that can be used in combination with APO enable more modularity for the next transaction commitment use case.
Remove DLC mentions d93c2a70cc
Rephrase BIP 448 comparison with APO 7ac1cce7ec
OrfeasLitos commented at 3:19 PM on September 2, 2026: contributor

@darosior let's try to clarify the comparison with APO while keeping it high level.

The main benefit of APO is that it enables more customizable covenants than BIP 448. Its main drawback vis-a-vis 448 is that it extends transaction validity semantics in a rather pervasive way, making it even harder to hold it all in my head. OTOH 448 achieves most of the things that APO does while introducing minimal new powers to the Script - it's much easier for me to reason about what's happening inside a script because I can forget almost all other Bitcoin semantics. What's more, it does it by adding 3 simple-to-reason-about opcodes, so it makes future updates easier to reason about than APO would.

I've pushed a candidate rephrasing, let me know what you think.

Contributors

Labels

Proposed BIP modification Pending acceptance