Hi Michael,
> If OP_CTV is ready to go now and has overwhelming community support (I don’t
> think either is true) it should surely have been included in the Taproot soft
> fork (perhaps delayed) rather than going through the months of activation
> wrangling and community outreach twice.
It sh
Prayank via bitcoin-dev writes:
>> To contrast with his approach, the authors and contributors of
>> another future soft fork proposal (BIP 118 [3], SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT)
>> aren’t promoting an imminent soft fork activation attempt and instead
>> are building out and testing one of the speculated us
> It should be ready to go in a few months IMO
What is this assessment based on? I am assuming you haven't done a code review
of the opcode, you haven't coded up a real world use case of OP_CTV (or even a
primitive proof of concept), you haven't thought about alternative proposals
for any parti
Hi Christian,
A few things are mentioned in these threads including unsolved research issues
in which you were tagged and Richard Myers had even replied so I am assuming
this is known:
https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin/status/1460349481518465025
https://twitter.com/ajtowns/status/147758600225223
What I have done related to OP_CTV?
https://twitter.com/prayankgahlot/status/1456643891885592579
What am I currently working on that is not shared publicly and will do in next
few weeks?
Review pull request 21702 and write contracts using Sapio based on few ideas
that I already have.
What is
You are working on a use case of OP_CTV now? Cool, you only recently announced
you were working on Bitcoin Knots (and I think Wasabi before that) so I'm
losing track of all the announcements. Regardless stick with it and build out
more than a rudimentary proof of concept. That is one of the thin
> You are working on a use case of OP_CTV now?
I think I mentioned clearly what I would be doing: 1. Review pull request 2.
Create contracts with Sapio. This would help me review OP_CTV and learn new
things.
> Cool, you only recently announced you were working on Bitcoin Knots (and I
> think W
