mirror of
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips.git
synced 2025-05-12 12:03:29 +00:00
[BIP-119] Slim down motivation, add more references
This commit is contained in:
parent
b1791c24aa
commit
de0ff362fc
@ -39,125 +39,24 @@ The recommended standardness rules additionally:
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
==Motivation==
|
==Motivation==
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Covenants are restrictions on how a coin may be spent beyond key ownership. This is a general
|
Covenants are restrictions on how a coin may be spent beyond key ownership.
|
||||||
definition based on the legal definition which even simple scripts using CSV would satisfy.
|
This is a general definition based on the legal definition which even simple
|
||||||
Covenants in Bitcoin transactions usually refer to restrictions on where coins can be transferred.
|
scripts using CSV would satisfy. Covenants in Bitcoin transactions usually
|
||||||
Covenants can be useful to construct smart contracts. As covenants are complex to implement
|
refer to restrictions on where coins can be transferred. Covenants can be
|
||||||
and risk of introducing fungibility discriminants they have not been seriously considered for
|
useful to construct smart contracts. As covenants are complex to implement and
|
||||||
inclusion in Bitcoin.
|
risk of introducing fungibility discriminants they have not been seriously
|
||||||
|
considered for inclusion in Bitcoin.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
This BIP introduces a simple covenant called a *template* which enables a limited set of highly
|
This BIP introduces a simple covenant called a *template* which enables a
|
||||||
valuable use cases without significant risk.
|
limited set of highly valuable use cases without significant risk. BIP-119
|
||||||
|
templates allow for non-recursive fully-enumerated covenants with no dynamic
|
||||||
|
state. CTV serves as a replacement for a pre-signed transaction oracle, which
|
||||||
|
eliminates the trust and interactivity requirements. Examples of uses include
|
||||||
|
wallet vaults, non-interactive payment channel creation, congestion controlled
|
||||||
|
batching, efficient to construct discreet log contracts, and payment pools,
|
||||||
|
among many others. For more details on these applications, please see the
|
||||||
|
references.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
A few examples are described below, which should be the subject of future non-consensus
|
|
||||||
standardization efforts.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
===Congestion Controlled Transactions===
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
When there is a high demand for blockspace it becomes very expensive to make transactions. A large
|
|
||||||
volume payment processor may aggregate all their payments into a single O(1) transaction commitment
|
|
||||||
for purposes of confirmation using CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY. Then, some time later, the payments can
|
|
||||||
be expanded out of that UTXO when the demand for blockspace is decreased. These payments can be
|
|
||||||
structured in a tree-like fashion to reduce individual costs of redemption.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The below chart showcases the structure of these transactions in comparison to
|
|
||||||
normal transactions and batched transactions.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<img src="bip-0119/states.svg" align="middle"></img>
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
A simulation is shown below of what impact this could have on mempool backlog
|
|
||||||
given 5% network adoption, and 50% network adoption. The code for the simulation
|
|
||||||
is provided in this BIP's subdirectory.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<img src="bip-0119/five.png" align="middle"></img>
|
|
||||||
<img src="bip-0119/fifty.png" align="middle"></img>
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
===Payment Channels===
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
There are numerous payment channel related uses.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
====Batched Channel Creation====
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Using CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY for Batched Channel Creation is similar to the use for Congestion Control,
|
|
||||||
except the leaf node transactions are channels instead of plain payments. The channel can be between
|
|
||||||
the sender and recipient or a target of recipient's choice. Using an CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY, the
|
|
||||||
recipient may give the sender an address which makes a tree of channels unbeknownst to them.
|
|
||||||
These channels are time insensitive for setup, as all punishments are relative timelocked to the
|
|
||||||
penultimate transaction node.
|
|
||||||
Thus, coins sent using a congestion controlled transaction can still enjoy instant liquidity.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
====Non-Interactive Channels====
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
When opening a traditional payment channel, both parties to the channel must participate. This is
|
|
||||||
because the channel uses pre-signed multi-sig transactions to ensure that a channel can always be
|
|
||||||
exited by either party, before entering.
|
|
||||||
With CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY, it’s possible for a single party to construct a channel which either
|
|
||||||
party can exit from without requiring signatures from both parties.
|
|
||||||
These payment channels can operate in one direction, paying to the channel "listener" without need
|
|
||||||
for their private key to be online.
|
|
||||||
<img src="bip-0119/nic.svg" align="middle"></img>
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
====Increased Channel Routes====
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
In the Lightning Network protocol, Hashed Time Locked Contracts (HTLCS) are used in the construction
|
|
||||||
of channels. A new HTLC is required per route that the channel is serving in.
|
|
||||||
In BOLT #2, this maximum number of HTLCs in a channel is hard limited to 483 as the maximum safe
|
|
||||||
size to prevent the transaction from being too large to be valid. In common software implementations
|
|
||||||
such as LND, this limit is set much lower to 12 HTLCS. This is because accepting a larger number of
|
|
||||||
HTLCS makes it more difficult for transactions to confirm during congested periods as they must pay
|
|
||||||
higher fees.
|
|
||||||
Therefore, similarly to how congestion control is handled for normal transaction, lightning channel
|
|
||||||
updates can be done across an CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY tree, allowing nodes to safely use many more
|
|
||||||
HTLCS.
|
|
||||||
Because each HTLC can have its own relative time lock in the tree, this also improves the latency
|
|
||||||
sensitivity of the lightning protocol on contested channel close.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
===Wallet Vaults===
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
This section will detail two variants of wallet vault that can be built using
|
|
||||||
CTV. Wallet vaults are a useful tool when greater security is required for
|
|
||||||
cold storage solutions, providing default transactional paths that move funds
|
|
||||||
from one's cold storage to a hot wallet.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
One type of cold wallet can be set up such that a customer support desk can,
|
|
||||||
without further authorization, move a portion of the funds (using multiple
|
|
||||||
pre-set amounts) into a lukewarm wallet operated by an isolated support desk.
|
|
||||||
The support desk can then issue some funds to a hot wallet, and send the
|
|
||||||
remainder back to cold storage with a similar withdrawal mechanism in place.
|
|
||||||
This is all possible without CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY, but CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY
|
|
||||||
eliminates the need for coordination and online signers, as well as reducing
|
|
||||||
the ability for a support desk to improperly move funds. Furthermore, all such
|
|
||||||
designs can be combined with relative time locks to give time for compliance
|
|
||||||
and risk desks to intervene. This is a 'Coins at Rest' or 'Optically Isolated'
|
|
||||||
vault, and is shown below.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<img src="bip-0119/vaults.svg" align="middle"></img>
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
An alternative design for vaults is also highly effective and simpler to
|
|
||||||
implement in Sapio, a smart contract programming language. In this design, the
|
|
||||||
user commits to a single UTXO that contains a program for an annuity of
|
|
||||||
withdrawals from cold storage to a hot wallet. At any time, the remaining
|
|
||||||
balance for the annuity can be cancelled and funds locked entirely in cold
|
|
||||||
storage. The withdrawals to the hot wallet can be 'cancelled' before a maturity
|
|
||||||
date to ensure the action was authorized. These sort of vaults strongly benefit
|
|
||||||
from non-interactivity because the withdrawal program can be set up with cold
|
|
||||||
keys that are permanently offline, except in case of emergency. The image below
|
|
||||||
shows an instance of this type of wallet vault created with Sapio in Sapio
|
|
||||||
Studio. These types of wallet vault can also be chained together by taking
|
|
||||||
advantage of CTV's scriptSig commitment. This type of vault is a 'Coins in Motion'
|
|
||||||
variant where the coins move along the control path.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<img src="bip-0119/vaultanim.gif" align="middle"></img>
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
===CoinJoin / Payment Pools / Join Pools ===
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY makes it much easier to set up trustless CoinJoins than
|
|
||||||
previously because participants agree on a single output which pays all
|
|
||||||
participants, which will be lower fee than before. Further each participant
|
|
||||||
doesn't need to know the totality of the outputs committed to by that output,
|
|
||||||
they only have to verify their own sub-tree will pay them. These trees can
|
|
||||||
then, using a top-level Schnorr key, be interactively updated on a rolling basis
|
|
||||||
forming a "Payment Pool".
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
==Detailed Specification==
|
==Detailed Specification==
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
@ -725,6 +624,14 @@ for older node versions that can be patched but not upgraded to a newer major re
|
|||||||
*[https://fc16.ifca.ai/bitcoin/papers/MES16.pdf Bitcoin Covenants]
|
*[https://fc16.ifca.ai/bitcoin/papers/MES16.pdf Bitcoin Covenants]
|
||||||
*[https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=278122.0 CoinCovenants using SCIP signatures, an amusingly bad idea.]
|
*[https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=278122.0 CoinCovenants using SCIP signatures, an amusingly bad idea.]
|
||||||
*[https://fc17.ifca.ai/bitcoin/papers/bitcoin17-final28.pdf Enhancing Bitcoin Transactions with Covenants]
|
*[https://fc17.ifca.ai/bitcoin/papers/bitcoin17-final28.pdf Enhancing Bitcoin Transactions with Covenants]
|
||||||
|
*[https://github.com/jamesob/simple-ctv-vault Simple CTV Vaults]
|
||||||
|
*[https://github.com/kanzure/python-vaults Python Vaults]
|
||||||
|
*[https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-January/019808.html CTV Dramatically Improves DLCs]
|
||||||
|
*[https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-April/020225.html Calculus of Covenants]
|
||||||
|
*[https://rubin.io/bitcoin/2021/12/10/advent-13/ Payment Pools with CTV]
|
||||||
|
*[https://rubin.io/bitcoin/2021/12/11/advent-14/ Channels with CTV]
|
||||||
|
*[https://rubin.io/bitcoin/2021/12/09/advent-12/ Congestion Control with CTV]
|
||||||
|
*[https://rubin.io/bitcoin/2021/12/07/advent-10/ Building Vaults on Bitcoin]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
===Note on Similar Alternatives===
|
===Note on Similar Alternatives===
|
||||||
|
Loading…
x
Reference in New Issue
Block a user