Hi darosior, Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.
> I would like to know people's sentiment about doing (a very slightly tweaked > version of) BIP118 in place of > (or before doing) BIP119. Sounds good to me. Although from an activation perspective it may not be either/or, both proposals do compete for scarce reviewer time so their ordering will necessarily be driven by reviewer's priorities. My priority is eltoo which is why I focus on BIP-118. > SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUTANYSCRIPT, if its "ANYONECANPAY" behaviour is made optional > [0], can emulate CTV just fine. For someone not as versed in CTV, why is it necessary that ANYONECANPAY be optional to emulate CTV? Is there a write-up that explains how APO-AS w/out ANYONECANPAY approximates CTV? In the case of eltoo commit txs, we use bring-your-own-fee (BYOF) to late-bind fees; that means ANYONECANPAY will always be paired with APO-AS for eltoo. Settlement txs in eltoo use just APO and do not necessarily need to be paired with ANYONECANPAY. I would guess making ANYONECANPAY the default for APO-AS was a way to squeeze in one more sighash flag. Perhaps there's another way to do it? Including SIGHASH_GROUP with APO for eltoo is also tempting. Specifically so the counter-party who commits a settlement tx can use for fees their settled to_self balance. How to rejigger the sighash flags to accommodate both APO and GROUP may be worth some discussion. The BIP-118 proposal will certainly benefit from having input from reviewers looking at other protocols than eltoo. -- Richard _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
