I made a comment on
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/943#issuecomment-876034559 but it
occurred to me it is more ML appropriate.
In general, one thing that strikes me is that when anyprevout is used for
eltoo you're generally doing a script like:
```
IF
10 CSV DROP
1::musigkey(As,Bs)
Hah -- ZmnSCPxj that post's a doozy -- but it more or less makes sense the
argument you're making in favor of permitting recursion at the transaction
level.
One part that's less clear is if you can make a case against being
recursive in Script fragments themselves -- ignoring bitcoin script for
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 9:12 AM Russell O'Connor
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 12:26 AM ZmnSCPxj wrote:
>
>> Good morning Russell,
>>
>> > Hi ZmnSCPxj,
>> >
>> > I don't believe we need to ban Turing completeness for the sake of
>> banning Turing completeness.
>>
>> Well I believe we should
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 12:26 AM ZmnSCPxj wrote:
> Good morning Russell,
>
> > Hi ZmnSCPxj,
> >
> > I don't believe we need to ban Turing completeness for the sake of
> banning Turing completeness.
>
> Well I believe we should ban partial Turing-completeness, but allow total
>
I wanted to relay an interesting related link that Melvin PMed me:
https://petertodd.org/2016/commitments-and-single-use-seals
@Aronesty
Thanks, that system looks interesting, I'll have a closer look!
@Voskuil
I think we must disagree on at least one fundamental point. I'm finding
myself
> As far as I know the “claw back” mechanism doesn’t exist in Bitcoin
system, and probably most Bitcoiners won’t be agree on it.
It certainly doesn't. And it would definitely be a hard sell.
> It looks the miners still can abuse Sabu, but as I told before the miner
or better say the mining pool
Thanks for the clarifications Sanket and Russel!
> OP_TWEAK
Ah gotcha. I'm very much in support of recursive covenants. I was lead to
them as a way to create more efficient and flexible wallet vaults. I
actually wrote a proposal
