{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub17rld56k4365lfphyd8u8kwuejey5xcazdxptserx03wc4jc9g24stx9l2h","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub17rld56k4365lfphyd8u8kwuejey5xcazdxptserx03wc4jc9g24stx9l2h","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2022-04-19\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 01:58:38PM -0800, Jeremy Rubin via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e AJ Wrote (in another thread):\n\u003e \u003e   I'd much rather see some real\n\u003e \u003e   third-party experimentation *somewhere* public first, and Jeremy's CTV\n\u003e \u003e   signet being completely empty seems like a bad sign to me. \n\nThere's now been some 2,200 txs on CTV signet, of which (if I haven't\nmissed anything) 317 have been CTV spends:\n\n - none have been bare CTV (ie, CTV in scriptPubKey directly, not via\n   p2sh/p2wsh/taproot)\n\n - none have been via p2sh\n\n - 3 have been via taproot:\n    https://explorer.ctvsignet.com/tx/f73f4671c6ee2bdc8da597f843b2291ca539722a168e8f6b68143b8c157bee20\n    https://explorer.ctvsignet.com/tx/7e4ade977db94117f2d7a71541d87724ccdad91fa710264206bb87ae1314c796\n    https://explorer.ctvsignet.com/tx/e05d828bf716effc65b00ae8b826213706c216b930aff194f1fb2fca045f7f11\n\n   The first two of these had alternative merkle paths, the last didn't.\n\n - 314 have been via p2wsh\n    https://explorer.ctvsignet.com/tx/62292138c2f55713c3c161bd7ab36c7212362b648cf3f054315853a081f5808e\n   (don't think there's any meaningfully different examples?)\n\nAs far as I can see, all the scripts take the form:\n\n  [PUSH 32 bytes] [OP_NOP4] [OP_DROP] [OP_1]\n\n(I didn't think DROP/1 is necessary here? Doesn't leaving the 32 byte\nhash on the stack evaluate as true? I guess that means everyone's using\nsapio to construct the txs?)\n\nI don't think there's any demos of jamesob's simple-ctv-vault [0], which\nI think uses a p2wsh of \"IF n CSV DROP hotkey CHECKSIG ELSE lockcoldtx CTV\nENDIF\", rather than taproot branches.\n\n[0] https://github.com/jamesob/simple-ctv-vault\n\nLikewise I don't think there's any examples of \"this CTV immediately;\nor if fees are too high, this other CTV that pays more fees after X\ndays\", though potentially they could be hidden in the untaken taproot\nmerkle branches.\n\nI don't think there's any examples of two CTV outputs being combined\nand spent in a single transaction.\n\nI don't see any txs with nSequence set meaningfully; though most (all?)\nof the CTV spends seem to set nSequence to 0x00400000 which I think\ndoesn't have a different effect from 0xfffffffe?\n\nThat looks to me like there's still not much practical (vs theoretical)\nexploration of CTV going on; but perhaps it's an indication that CTV\ncould be substantially simplified and still get all the benefits that\npeople are particularly eager for.\n\n\u003e I am unsure that \"learning in public\" is required --\n\nFor a consensus system, part of the learning is \"this doesn't seem that\ninteresting to me; is it actually valuable enough to others that the\nchange is worth the risk it imposes on me?\" and that's not something\nyou can do purely in private.\n\nOne challenge with building a soft fork is that people don't want to\ncommit to spending time building something that relies on consensus\nfeatures and run the risk that they might never get deployed. But the\nreverse of that is also a concern: you don't want to deploy consensus\nchanges and run the risk that they won't actually turn out to be useful.\n\nOr, perhaps, to \"meme-ify\" it -- part of the \"proof of work\" for deploying\na consensus change is actually proving that it's going to be useful.\nLike sha256 hashing, that does require real work, and it might turn out\nto be wasteful.\n\nCheers,\naj"}