Author: Swambo, Jacob 2022-05-03 16:40:22
Published on: 2022-05-03T16:40:22+00:00
The author of the post retracts their statement about a 'point in favour of OP_CTV', realizing that APOAS and CTV both face a trade-off between flexibility and safety. They question why there is a need for less restrictive templates. The first reason they provide is that if a transaction disallows RBF, it becomes difficult for an attacker to create a malicious alternative. Secondly, certain covenant-based applications may not be as critical, making it acceptable to take the risk of using something like ANYONECANPAY|ALL even with RBF enabled. Finally, in a trusted multi-party context, flexible signature messages can be utilized safely. The author cites an example where three people produce a witness and the second participant can add a change output before signing. This additional flexibility through composing APOAS with other SIGHASH modes and the ability to re-bind covenant transactions to different UTXOs allows protocol designers to do more with APOAS covenants than with CTV covenants (as currently specified). While the author is not convinced that BIP-118 is entirely safe, they believe that the recent debate is part of the maturation process and are glad for it.
Updated on: 2023-06-15T19:26:14.159542+00:00