Hi all,
Following up my September's mail on the setting of a new decentralized,
open and neutral community process dedicated to covenants R&D, a.k.a
"Bitcoin Contracting Primitives WG", few updates.
After collecting feedback on the adequate communication channel, a low
access bar and pseudonymous
On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 9:18 PM Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hi Buck,
>
[...]
>
> I would vote against Slack. IRC is probably the best but maybe too high a
> barrier to entry? Publishing logs at least would counter concerns of it
> being exclusiv
Hi Buck,
> First just wanted to thank you for taking the initiative to
> put this together. I think that as the community and
> ecosystem continue to grow, it's going to be an important
> part of the process to have groups like this develop. Hopefully
> they allow us to resist the "Tyranny of Stru
Hi Devrandom,
> Agreed, anything that requires a phone number makes it difficult to be
> pseudonymous.
>
> I recommend Matrix, since it doesn't require any privacy invasive
> information and has e2ee by default for 1-1 conversations.
Yeah sounds like people are opting for either Matrix or IRC and
On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 6:03 PM Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 2:47 AM Buck O Perley via bitcoin-dev
> First just wanted to thank you
> for taking the initiative to
> > put this together. I think that as the community and
> > e
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 2:47 AM Buck O Perley via bitcoin-dev
First just wanted to thank you
for taking the initiative to
> put this together. I think that as the community and
> ecosystem continue to grow, it's going to be an important
> part of the process to have groups like this develop. Hopef
Hi Antoine,
First just wanted to thank you for taking the initiative to
put this together. I think that as the community and
ecosystem continue to grow, it's going to be an important
part of the process to have groups like this develop. Hopefully
they allow us to resist the "Tyranny of Structur
Hi all,
Following up on my July's mail proposing to setup a new community process
dedicated to covenant R&D, after aggregating all the feedbacks received
online/offline, I've started a repository to collect the use-cases and
known design constraints:
https://github.com/ariard/bitcoin-contracting-
Hi Billy,
> I was actually not thinking one large central in-person meeting, but many
smaller decentralized in-person meetings where no one has to travel far.
The meetings can be used to foster communication that can then be
summarized and/or brought online and discussed with the larger group. Wou
> I would like to note it's real work for the organizers in terms of time
and energy: finding a common date making consensus, an acceptable host
country (i.e respecting the travel policy of the widest...
I was actually not thinking one large central in-person meeting, but many
smaller decentraliz
Hi Billy,
Thanks for your interest in a covenant working group.
> place for this kind of thing to happen. I also agree with Ryan Grant's
> comment about in-person cut-through (ie cut through the BS and resolve
> misunderstandings). Perhaps every 3 IRC meetings or so, an in-person
meetup
> can be
@Antoine
I very much like your proposal of an open decentralized process for
investigating the problem and solution spaces. IRC sounds like a reasonable
place for this kind of thing to happen. I also agree with Ryan Grant's
comment about in-person cut-through (ie cut through the BS and resolve
misu
On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 8:21 PM Antoine Riard
wrote:
> What would be the canonical definition and examples of capabilities in the
> Bitcoin context ?
>
Payments into vaults which can only be accepted by that vault and are
guaranteed to be subject to the vault's restrictions (the vault has a
capa
What would be the canonical definition and examples of capabilities in the
Bitcoin context ?
In anycase, I believe it would be better to start a covenant process from
the use-cases in themselves, and analyse the trade-offs of any set of
contracting primitives, or even new Bitcoin fields if they're
Hi Zeeman,
So on the first concern of using an "economic simulation" or
sidechains/other cryptocurrencies to gather feedback about interest of
Script extensions, I wonder about the value transitivity of such a process
to measure consensus. Namely, if you have asset X picked up in system A, it
does
Hi aliashraf,
Well, reading the excerpt you're pointing to, I'm using the term "high
standard" and deliberately not best practice. I hope with the increase in
the funds at stakes in the ecosystem and the growth in the technical
complexity, we'll set higher and higher standards in terms of Bitcoin
Good morning alia, Antoine, and list,
> Hi Antoine,
> Claiming Taproot history, as best practice or a standard methodology in
> bitcoin development, is just too much. Bitcoin development methodology is an
> open problem, given the contemporary escalation/emergence of challenges,
> history is no
I suppose it is more about spending from vaults, rather than locking in. A
covenant would impose rules for spending tx.e.g. :Don't spend this output
unless it is claimed by a tx which
1) Spends it as a whole in the very first output.
2) This output is P2SH with specified script pattern ( a TLC sc
On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 2:46 PM Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Indeed this range has grown wild. Without aiming to be exhaustive (I'm
> certainly missing some interesting proposals lost in the abyss of
> bitcointalk.org), we can mention the followin
--- Original Message ---
On Saturday, July 23rd, 2022 at 9:11 PM, Antoine Riard via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> I'm thinking such a covenant effort would be more a technical process aiming
> to advance the state of covenant & contracting knowledge, collect and
> document the u
Hi Michael,
> One cautionary word from someone who is probably still feeling the
effects of burn out from the activation drama earlier in the year. No
process can guarantee community > consensus at the end of it especially if
some of those who we consider experts in this area only tentatively
part
Hi Ryan,
> Certain human/organizational limitations prevent things being said in
> logged channels that sometimes can be shared in person. Sometimes
> people break through misunderstandings in person, through either
> informal mingling or the use of Chatham House rules. So I would also
> advoca
Hi Antoine
This looks great and I can certainly see progress being made in a number of
directions on this. I thought you did a great job with the L2 onchain support
workshops and I'm sure you'll do a great job moving this forward.
One cautionary word from someone who is probably still feeling t
+1 I'd participate.
Certain human/organizational limitations prevent things being said in
logged channels that sometimes can be shared in person. Sometimes
people break through misunderstandings in person, through either
informal mingling or the use of Chatham House rules. So I would also
advoc
Hi,
Discussions on covenants have been prolific and intense on this mailing
list and within the wider Bitcoin technical circles, I believe however
without succeeding to reach consensus on any new set of contracting
primitives satisfying the requirements of known covenant-enabled use-cases.
I think
25 matches
Mail list logo
