Eg. Regulators may comply bitcoin wallet providers and services to default to generating addresses with OP_CTV and implement spending conditions prohibiting coins to be spent to blacklisted addresses.
67 sats \ 3 replies \ @fiatjaf 24 Apr 2022
CTV is not as powerful as you think. It is just checking a hash. The attack you're thinking about requires what they call "recursive covenants".
When you create a CTV spend you must already know all the possible future spends and you can't fall into the same system. It's a pretty dumb change, and pretty safe, easy to reason about. Even though it is super simple it has some nice use cases.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @falsefaucet 24 Apr 2022
is there no way to add spend conditions after the fact?
still tyring to wrap my head around this whole thing
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @fiatjaf 24 Apr 2022
There is no way, it is super limited. Read the BIP directly: https://bips.xyz/119
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nobody OP 24 Apr 2022 freebie
Ok thanks. Sounds good. I will look more into it.
22 sats \ 0 replies \ @2big2fail 24 Apr 2022
seems to be 100% voluntary so what is the big deal?
reply
33 sats \ 2 replies \ @yakshaver 24 Apr 2022 freebie
I don't believe it's any worse than multisig. Regulators could demand exchanges only output to addresses encumbered by a multisig that includes a government controlled pubkey.
reply
22 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 24 Apr 2022
I've heard things like this said before, and while its true governments could already do this (and don't seem to be interested), it kind of brushes off the fact that CTV will make things like this easier (which will make it more appealing to do).
reply
12 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 24 Apr 2022
That said, I'm not against CTV. It allows you to do cool stuff. It's simple and powerful. It just empowers everyone.
reply
12 sats \ 7 replies \ @arrowdrive 24 Apr 2022
No one can force you to use one of these wallets though. There’s plenty of selection to choose from if a few wallet providers decide to comply with this sort of regulation. Most are also open source, so you or someone else can fork it to remove this requirement.
Doesn’t seem like a big issue to me.
reply
110 sats \ 6 replies \ @nobody OP 24 Apr 2022 freebie
Nobody could force me to take the covid jab, but they managed to manipulate, scare and coerce most people to take it. Anything other than Pfizer or Moderna was discouraged and or forbidden. Most critics was ridiculed and censored.
Bitcoin can be attacked in a similar way. Apple Store and Google Play Store rules can be leveraged against us. Only apps using CTV and x conditions will be allowed. A coordinated media campaign can be leveraged against us. Search engines can hide alternatives, and social media can flag and remove dissenting voices.
CTV will make these kind of attacks easier to scale, no multisig necessary.
The simple fact that bitcoin is hard to understand from a technical stand point, and that the legacy system seem to be singing on its last verse may give us enough time to avert attacks like this. Hopefully we will onboard enough people with the right adversarial mind set and understanding of free open source software to make attacks like these totally unfeasible.
But i still have a hard time accepting a change to bitcoin core consensus that make its security worse. BTW i also had a hard time accepting taproot.
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 24 Apr 2022
So what you are trying to say is that you are afraid that Bitcoin will be attacked by media campaigns, not by CTV code itself...
In this case you are totally biased.
Bring proofs, technical proof that BIP119 can harm Bitcoin not bullshit propaganda. Propaganda doesn't work on Bitcoin.
reply
6 sats \ 4 replies \ @k00b 24 Apr 2022
How does CTV make security worse?
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @nobody OP 24 Apr 2022 freebie
If its easier to attack its security is worse. Also when complexity at the base layer builds up the attack surface increace. But as people say it may not be a big deal. Felt the same with taproot increasing the attack surface wrt quantum computers.
11 sats \ 0 replies \ @cryptocoin 25 Apr 2022
Here is a related article, but it is the activation method for than CTV that is the issue:
OP_CTV - Summer Softfork Shenanigans | BitMEX Blog
#22113
https://blog.bitmex.com/op_ctv-summer-softfork-shenaniganshe
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @falsefaucet 26 Apr 2022
Covenants are very niche use cases. I think the bigger story is how rubin is going the MASF(ST) method of activation.
Can someone explain to me why ST was okay for taproot but not for CTV. There should have been a bigger discussion around ST and it's use as an activation method when it came up with Taproot. But most of us were either complacent or didn't care enough cause we wanted taproot.
Idk seems like there was a discussion that should have been had at taproot activation proposal. Maybe there was and I missed it, if so can someone link me please.
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @nout 25 Apr 2022
Andreas Antonopoulos put high level summary on covenants here: #22621 (but not that specific to BIP119):
- The question he poses there is whether there's some trick that OP_CTV can be used to create recursive covenants, which would be a honeypot for regulators as a really easy way to create a regulated class of UTXOs. His argument is that we should be careful about introducing easy/marketable ways to regulate bitcoin. This is not specific question to BIP119, because it's not clear if BIP119 enables recursive covenants.
reply
5 sats \ 0 replies \ @nobody OP 25 Apr 2022 freebie
Thanks for that. Andreas gave a great overview of the situation, and addressed some of my worries. That said it seem a little unclear to me if CTV will by some sly round about way introduce the possibility of recursive covenants. I need to study the details of bip 119 before i can support it. He also made a good point about the dangers of Speedy Trial activation as a first step instead of last step of the activation process. When its clear that there is no danger, and has overwhelming support Speedy Trial can be used. To early to discuss activation atm imo.
reply