Author: Nadav Ivgi 2022-05-01 14:25:42
Published on: 2022-05-01T14:25:42+00:00
The email thread discusses the use of BIP118 in place of or before using BIP119. The author suggests committing to the number of inputs instead of committing to `sha_sequences` to ensure txid stability for single input transactions, as it allows inputs to set their own nSequence. The author also suggests not covering `sha_amounts` in the message hash or making it optional behind a flag as covering it can result in unusable covenant-encumbered spend paths due to sending incorrect amounts, and allowing additional inputs can fee-bump the covenant spending transaction. The APO/APOAS already commits to the nSequence of the current input, which guarantees that the scriptSig of the covenant input is empty. The author believes that APO-AS covenants can emulate CTV just fine with its "ANYONECANPAY" behavior made optional, and that APO-AS covers flagship use cases like vaults. The author proposes that BIP118 is a soft fork candidate that could benefit more Bitcoin users than BIP119.
Updated on: 2023-06-15T19:19:04.487701+00:00