Author: darosior 2022-04-26 10:20:04
Published on: 2022-04-26T10:20:04+00:00
The author of the message believes that there has been a lot of confusion between Bitcoin vaults and covenants, and they suggest that these two concepts should be differentiated. They argue that CTV is useful for Bitcoin vaults, as it can pre-commit to a Cancel transaction directly in the Unvault Script, which reduces interactivity and simplifies fee bumping. However, the author also believes that CTV is not sufficient on its own because it cannot be used to receive coins on a single-sig script with a vaulting step in a single-party situation. To address this issue, the author suggests using something like TLUV with IN_OUT_AMOUNT instead. The author acknowledges that committing entirely to withdrawal amounts in advance is very impractical and poses a significant user experience barrier. They argue that users do not think in coins but in amounts to transfer. The current implementation(s) of Bitcoin vaults face this problem, which CTV does not solve, and the author suggests that new applications leveraging ANYPREVOUT could be deployed instead. Finally, the author notes that while CTV is useful, they doubt it is necessary nor sufficient for practical vaults. They believe that APO-AS covenants cover this use case and are more widely accepted than CTV's. The author proposes that BIP118 is a soft fork candidate that could benefit most Bitcoin users, as it enables CTV's features.
Updated on: 2023-05-22T19:45:08.929081+00:00