Author: Jeremy Rubin 2022-04-22 05:30:08
Published on: 2022-04-22T05:30:08+00:00
The context discusses the potential benefits of using bare CTV (Consensus-enforced Transaction Validity) over segwit v0/v1. It is noted that using bare CTV can save 34 or 67 bytes per histogram bucket, which could enable more buckets for the same byte budget and result in greater feerate savings for the user. The example of exponential user priorities is given to illustrate this point. Binning into 5 groups yields a higher feerate discount than binning into 4 groups, despite the marginal cost difference between the two binning methods being more than "paid for" by switching to bare instead of segwit v0. It is acknowledged that the knock-on effects of such changes are difficult to predict accurately. However, it is suggested that the cheapness of nodes in the graph can change the optimal graph and make simple comparisons inadequate. In response to a comment on testing, it is argued that bugs such as nonstandard broadcasting would be fixed through testing, and that the proposed changes are still in the "interesting thought experiment" stage.Regarding the use of bare CTV, it is noted that it only saves bytes when spending, and even then, an extra 34 or 67 bytes of witness data is fairly immaterial. Furthermore, the closest thing to real user data suggests that nobody will benefit from the possibility of using bare CTV. It is also argued that if new features are desired, old hardware may need to be upgraded to support them. Finally, the potential benefits of using segwit v0 CTV for users with hardware modules or MPC Threshold Crypto that only support ECDSA signatures are discussed.
Updated on: 2023-06-15T16:54:01.849577+00:00