Soft-Fork/Covenant Dependent Layer 2 Review \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

Soft-Fork/Covenant Dependent Layer 2 Review petertodd.org/2024/covenant-dependent-layer-2-review

114.4k sats \ 18 comments \ @petertodd 2 Sep bitcoin

131 sats \ 0 replies \ @nerd2ninja 2 Sep

While in reality the txout tree isn’t actually being enforced, every bit of code interacting with the tree and each party can be tested as though it is, and since NOP and CheckSig are allowed in standard scripts, the protocol can be tested on mainnet with real funds.

I call this kind of testing a cargo cult protocol lmao.

Overall pretty great analysis. I'll probably reference it pretty often. I'm pretty hyperfixated on multi-party channels right now and I did already know that vtxos would be a helpful extension, but this does clear up a few implementation specifics I didn't know about yet. So thanks for that.

131 sats \ 1 reply \ @conduition 8 Sep

Our first covenant-specic opcode proposal, OP_CheckTemplateVerify — or “CTV” as it’s commonly referred to — aims to create a very specific, restricted, covenant opcode by doing exactly one thing: hashing the spending transaction in a specified way that does not commit to the input UTXOs, and checking the resulting digest against the top stack element. This allows the spending transaction to be constrained in advance, without making true recursive covenant restrictions possible.

I had never really understood OP_CTV before reading this paragraph. Bravo

121 sats \ 0 replies \ @petertodd OP 8 Sep

Thanks!

160 sats \ 5 replies \ @OT 2 Sep

This us the first I've heard about being technically able to open 1.1 billion LN channels per year.

163 sats \ 4 replies \ @benthecarman 2 Sep

This is only for the outputs of the transaction. Would actually be much smaller in reality

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @petertodd OP 2 Sep

You can batch open lightning channels, and it doesn't take many in a batch to effectively amortize away the txins and change.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @OT 2 Sep

Yes, its hard to know how much block space LN will consume.

I was just surprised that these numbers would mean that its possible to have over 20k TX per block. I see 3-5k at the moment, but I don't think I've seen more that 6-7k. Is that because some TX have batched outputs?

31 sats \ 0 replies \ @petertodd OP 2 Sep

The numbers are about txouts, not transactions. They're assuming LN channels are batch opened, which is already implemented and commonly done.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @benthecarman 2 Sep

Yeah kinda

54 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 2 Sep

Read the whole thing. Very technical and very detailed. I personally cannot follow it all but thank you so much for writing it for the plebs as a summary! Tons of links and things to research later... I personally liked this part:

"There is a good argument that we should get additional operational experience with Lightning and its approximately 1-UTXO-per-user scaling, before pushing the limits even further with UTXO sharing schemes." Makes sense to me! +1

31 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rsync25 2 Sep

My personal recommendation: do a consensus cleanup soft-fork, followed by CTV

Great! :)

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @anon 8 Sep

This is similar to the one of scenarios created by Paul Sztorc in 2022. He called it "The (Implausible) Best Case Scenario" and noted that these assumptions "are quite absurd." https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/lightning-limitations/ What do you all think about this?

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @BlueSlime 3 Sep

This is a fantastic article. Well-researched, neatly formatted, full of references, great summaries and an unbiased view of the current Bitcoin layer-2 space.

My compliments to the chef. 😙🤌

20 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coinsreporter 2 Sep

Wow! Amazing review! So much to gulp in there. I'm reading it slowly and slowly, trying to understand.

Thanks @petertodd for this question answer format!

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SatsMate 3 Sep

Thanks for sharing, I will try my best to comb through it even though it looks to be very technical! Great work putting this out for the community to review !

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @BallLightning 2 Sep

This post is sus 🤨🤨🤨

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 2 Sep

Why?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satoshi__Nakamoto 2 Sep outlawed

stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.