Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV Signet Parameters

Sorry I didn't see this snippet fully earlier, but I caught it in Optech (cc harding) > *(I didn't think DROP/1 is necessary here? Doesn't leaving the 32 byte* > *hash on the stack evaluate as true? I guess that means everyone's > using**sapio to > construct the txs?)* Not quite: it would

Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV Signet Parameters

small note, it's a savings of 34 or 67 bytes *per histogram bucket* to have bare CTV v.s. v0/v1, so the interesting thing is that by making it cheaper bytes wise it might enable one to have, for the same byte budget, more buckets, which would make the feerate savings for the user even greater.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV Signet Parameters

> nobody's going to benefit from that possibility anyway. James O'Beirne's simple-ctv-vault appears to be using bare CTV outputs: https://github.com/jamesob/simple-ctv-vault/blob/7dd6c4ca25debb2140cdefb79b302c65d1b24937/main.py#L217-L218

Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV Signet Parameters

On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 10:05:20AM -0500, Jeremy Rubin via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I can probably make some show up sometime soon. Note that James' vault uses > one at the top-level https://github.com/jamesob/simple-ctv-vault, but I > think the second use of it (since it's not segwit wrapped)

Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV Signet Parameters

Hi Russell, Thank you for your feedback here. > However, I'm still skeptical of the bare-CTV part of BIP-119 (and I'm told > that bare-CTV hasn't even appeared on the CTV signet). Unlike the general > smart-contracting case, bare-CTV does not have any branches. All it can do > is commit to a

Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV Signet Parameters

On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 1:04 AM Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > - is there really any benefit to doing it as a NOP vs a taproot-only >opcode like TXHASH? Theoretically, sure, that saves some bytes; but as >was pointed out on

Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV Signet Parameters

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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV Signet Parameters

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:

Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV Signet Parameters

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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV Signet Parameters

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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV Signet Parameters

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,

Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV Signet Parameters

> 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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV Signet Parameters

On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 01:58:38PM -0800, Jeremy Rubin via bitcoin-dev wrote: > AJ Wrote (in another thread): > > I'd much rather see some real > > third-party experimentation *somewhere* public first, and Jeremy's CTV > > signet being completely empty seems like a bad sign to me. There's

Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV Signet Parameters

There's also now a faucet: https://faucet.ctvsignet.com thanks 0x0ff! -- @JeremyRubin On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 3:13 AM 0x0ff <0x...@onsats.org> wrote: > Good day, > > I've setup the explorer for CTV Signet which is now up and running at >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV Signet Parameters

Good day, I've setup the explorer for CTV Signet which is now up and running at [https://explorer.ctvsignet.com](https://explorer.ctvsignet.com/) Best, [@0x0ff](https://twitter.com/0x0ff_) --- Original Message --- On Thursday, February 17th, 2022 at 9:58 PM, Jeremy Rubin via

[bitcoin-dev] CTV Signet Parameters

Hi devs, I have been running a CTV signet for around a year and it's seen little use. Early on I had some issues syncing new nodes, but I have verified syncability to this signet using https://github.com/JeremyRubin/bitcoin/tree/checktemplateverify-signet-23.0-alpha. Please use this signet! ```