From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Delivery-date: Thu, 27 Nov 2025 18:11:21 -0800 Received: from mail-oa1-f64.google.com ([209.85.160.64]) by mail.fairlystable.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1vOnxB-0007FB-DU for bitcoindev@gnusha.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2025 18:11:21 -0800 Received: by mail-oa1-f64.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-3ec414777e7sf1221077fac.3 for ; Thu, 27 Nov 2025 18:11:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20230601; t=1764295875; x=1764900675; darn=gnusha.org; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:reply-to:x-original-sender :mime-version:subject:references:in-reply-to:message-id:to:from:date :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=tIUe3sdGWJVK/n2gZ6EuJ5EugT6L0wMq/pMZYe2JVLU=; b=Ne+SHU3UpZTwgyqwGNQioTYkkAwVu0mAkFDGNufgAEFI5QIyA4lR5TEsmU6oIKD8wg IAa0YbCvdyEbtH/iVH4t8IlYASx1qjN+RncuuQtUegivwsdq1e2PfwdunNBWyL1Bg8JC l3P/rYNRhv2fz5Vc/hWlV3mn4leexOWmrvhl0e3BFM9XLQFeZz+8VcEf4Us8CMVpNolt apaqND8KHtYD6hJcUh1nDTJNtGuwW3m24qTjkdrh/fCHTkxlUU9y+vPe8BYUfC2XtKfL 78j6uUb5SjjdcoJtt6WzyViOX6GT7sWKpQz/FlInxAJ6dWvuz9PLi6zbbOLt4hxu4yG5 7Nqg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1764295875; x=1764900675; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:reply-to:x-original-sender :mime-version:subject:references:in-reply-to:message-id:to:from:date :x-beenthere:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=tIUe3sdGWJVK/n2gZ6EuJ5EugT6L0wMq/pMZYe2JVLU=; b=eRE/KnvwM67l1qAiS+3IyycRP4DubbI/U06mpyLdc15RuDtaByjRfIA26ws3WL9+DU kviYC7oN/PFJ0sOzwf+EelfxCT3FNXVrVyeISIo3kbBt6cUyasQb7HA95CcCUNwZYosi TeAEH3vUPZ8Nh7vhxVihGJ3CpmJ1vPcilHG7oThIBjWRiITOS7oft7rwQsRWFf+y7+1D bN2js7rWiUzDUJlz6DoQPnaudHqJNVzBBMsJEC3rBpNIaCUy5dlNrBRXrYNMHcvAgNPs 5ENnT4ReYt2LgbBFfLg3zI2nu+9dOiGB/vDL2wFXS3R22UmEYUjEK4CT0P3w2e/WF5qd L0oA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVKIMI+yY3Wwg1ezfMA6FyxLF5Yrfbaflx/ETgkN0NNXAziE1L8JV7YIQrdrhNXvJkMBTV7PWC4hqef@gnusha.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Ywhc6fXbeywRQm/W/hnCLe4LlHZICGuGEERaWOc9BTdKgCJ0cTF tyjaUeUGNhlJxjWCYDtVZ7JtMnalYa/MXABmh/4Tiv4SaM7TlaJXTYY2 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IErn8YAHF4jVZb+agsxZaOZoLTMhdoJBMvZRb4498HhIx5jknrB5swXzq2ynt2cxvmC4+6IcA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6871:8301:b0:3c8:d325:b7ac with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-3ecbe28c2b5mr12864106fac.4.1764295874733; Thu, 27 Nov 2025 18:11:14 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; h="Ae8XA+arovVbhpLx7iOKYVWzoYq1bC/VdtULybOTnX/DdVlpzw==" Received: by 2002:a05:6871:292:b0:3db:9632:4d51 with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-3f0d28c18d5ls1036310fac.1.-pod-prod-09-us; Thu, 27 Nov 2025 18:11:10 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:1693:b0:450:1fa0:1447 with SMTP id 5614622812f47-4514e7f44cbmr4960441b6e.39.1764295870045; Thu, 27 Nov 2025 18:11:10 -0800 (PST) Received: by 2002:a81:fb03:0:b0:786:8d90:70d8 with SMTP id 00721157ae682-78ac3365063ms7b3; Thu, 27 Nov 2025 18:04:29 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a05:690e:1308:b0:641:f5bc:68ca with SMTP id 956f58d0204a3-643293d976emr8566090d50.71.1764295468380; Thu, 27 Nov 2025 18:04:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2025 18:04:28 -0800 (PST) From: "'conduition' via Bitcoin Development Mailing List" To: Bitcoin Development Mailing List Message-Id: <2914ad6f-7e1a-42b6-9c25-87ac48c63228n@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [bitcoindev] Re: op_ctv still has no technical objections MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_851620_177466679.1764295468061" X-Original-Sender: conduition@proton.me X-Original-From: conduition Reply-To: conduition Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 786775582512 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) ------=_Part_851620_177466679.1764295468061 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_851621_1705613226.1764295468061" ------=_Part_851621_1705613226.1764295468061 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable As someone who has had a merely passive interest in covenants tech, I can= =20 confidently say that OP_CTV is probably the only covenants proposal whose= =20 effects I can confidently say I fully grasp. It's also easy to explain to= =20 others. Not saying i'm not in favor of more complex multi-pronged upgrades= =20 like LNHANCE, just saying I don't fully understand their opcode interplay= =20 enough to say yay/nay. Which is maybe an under-represented argument in=20 favor of plain OP_CTV. regards, conduition On Thursday, November 27, 2025 at 1:18:03=E2=80=AFAM UTC-8 Erik Aronesty wr= ote: > It's been many years and there's been a lot of discussion about various= =20 > covenants=20 > > I think one of the biggest problems is everyone has to insist on their=20 > baby is the best baby.=20 > > op_ctv is quite literally not the best at anything. That's the whole=20 > point. It's non-recursive, can't be used for strange or dangerous things= ,=20 > and can be used to emulate a lot of other opcodes.=20 > > It's adequate. And I don't think we want anything "better" than adequate= =20 > the first time around. lnhance is more comprehensive. but also it's so= =20 > much harder to reason about three separate op codes and what the attack= =20 > surface could be. > > I don't think it's possible to optimize a series of covenants for all=20 > possible scenarios. Easy to make them too powerful and now nodes are doi= ng=20 > too much work and we're attracting the kind of network activity that nobo= dy=20 > wants. =20 > > Fortunately the risk of CTV is fairly low. It's always possible to turn= =20 > it off (no new tx)... if there's a game theory issue.=20 > > I don't think there's any particular rush, but we could lose a lot of fee= s=20 > and support for miners if Bitcoin continues to do what it is doing now...= =20 > scaling almost entirely in custodial systems. That's also just not the= =20 > Bitcoin that anyone loves. > > At this point it feels like it's "perfect is the enemy of the good". =20 > > We have an old and rather well tested pull request that is only a handful= =20 > of lines of code that everyone has scrutinized a million ways.=20 > > I don't think we're getting that for any other covenant opcode. =20 > > > > > > > > > > > --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/= 2914ad6f-7e1a-42b6-9c25-87ac48c63228n%40googlegroups.com. ------=_Part_851621_1705613226.1764295468061 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable As someone who has had a merely passive interest in covenants tech, I can c= onfidently say that OP_CTV is probably the only covenants proposal whose ef= fects I can confidently say I fully grasp. It's also easy to explain to oth= ers. Not saying i'm not in favor of more complex multi-pronged upgrades lik= e LNHANCE, just saying I don't fully understand their opcode interplay enou= gh to say yay/nay. Which is maybe an under-represented argument in favor of= plain OP_CTV.

regards,
conduition

On Thursday, November 27, 2025 at 1:18:03=E2=80=AFAM UTC-8 = Erik Aronesty wrote:
It's been many years and there's been a l= ot of discussion about various covenants=C2=A0

<= div dir=3D"auto">I think one of the biggest problems is everyone has to ins= ist on their baby is the best baby.=C2=A0

=
op_ctv is quite literally not the best at anything.=C2=A0= That's the whole point.=C2=A0 It's non-recursive, can't be use= d for strange or dangerous things, and can be used to emulate a lot of othe= r opcodes.=C2=A0

It'= s adequate.=C2=A0 And I don't think we want anything "better"= than adequate the first time around. lnhance is more comprehensive.=C2=A0 = but also it's so much harder to reason about three separate op codes an= d what the attack surface could be.

I don't think it's possible to optimize a series of cov= enants for all possible scenarios.=C2=A0 Easy to make them too powerful and= now nodes are doing too much work and we're attracting the kind of net= work activity that nobody wants.=C2=A0=C2=A0

Fortunately the risk of CTV is fairly low.=C2=A0 It= 9;s always possible to turn it off (no new tx)... if there's a game the= ory issue.=C2=A0

I don&#= 39;t think there's any particular rush, but we could lose a lot of fees= and support for miners if Bitcoin continues to do what it is doing now... = scaling almost entirely in custodial systems.=C2=A0 That's also just no= t the Bitcoin that anyone loves.

At this point it feels like it's "perfect is the enemy o= f the good".=C2=A0=C2=A0

We have an old and rather well tested pull request that is only a han= dful of lines of code that everyone has scrutinized a million ways.=C2=A0

I don't think we'= re getting that for any other covenant opcode.=C2=A0=C2=A0









--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bitcoind= ev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoind= ev/2914ad6f-7e1a-42b6-9c25-87ac48c63228n%40googlegroups.com.
------=_Part_851621_1705613226.1764295468061-- ------=_Part_851620_177466679.1764295468061--