Time to add CSFS to Signet?
9 messages, 17 to 26 Mar 2025. Started by Weikeng Chen.
moonsettler (3), Weikeng Chen (2), Greg Sanders (2), Antoine Poinsot, /dev /fd0
I am writing just to solicit people's opinions on whether CSFS should be added to signet given that CTV + CSFS combination has recently received a lot of support. Although CTV has already been on signet for a few years, CSFS isn't.
With CTV and CSFS being on the signet also allows part of the LNHANCE to start experimenting, and it has been discussed that CSFS helps with BitVM by replacing Winternitz signatures completely with a much lower potential on-chain data availability overhead. This also allows applications relying on CTV + CSFS to develop further.
Thanks, Weikeng
I wouldn't go as far as saying it received "a lot" of support, but it did receive some and i agree it would be nice to have both opcodes being discussed on Signet.
The PR adding it to inquisition last year as part of LNHANCE was abandoned and closed a few months ago. Greg Sanders recently opened a WIP pull request to add CSFS on its own: https://github.com/bitcoin-inquisition/bitcoin/pull/72.
Quoted text (1 line)
> This also allows applications relying on CTV + CSFS to develop further.
Looking forward to see some of that. On Sunday, March 16th, 2025 at 11:38 PM, Weikeng Chen <weikeng.chen@l2iterative•com> wrote:
Quoted text (11 lines)
> I am writing just to solicit people's opinions on whether CSFS should be added to signet given that CTV + CSFS combination has recently received a lot of support. Although CTV has already been on signet for a few years, CSFS isn't. > > With CTV and CSFS being on the signet also allows part of the LNHANCE to start experimenting, and it has been discussed that CSFS helps with BitVM by replacing Winternitz signatures completely with a much lower potential on-chain data availability overhead. This also allows applications relying on CTV + CSFS to develop further. > > Thanks, > Weikeng > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups•com. > To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/2584bf15-8e7f-4d89-8987-f41dd06b2824n%40googlegroups.com.
Hi Weikeng,
I agree that it has a lot of support among bitcoin developers. No objections for CSFS on [wiki][0]with evaluations from more than 50 bitcoin developers.
Co-author of APO, Christian Decker has also expressed his support for it on [twitter][1]. Even Greg Maxwell considers it [useful][2].
[0]: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Covenants_support [1]: https://x.com/Snyke/status/1895880013796556818 [2]: https://freenode.irclog.whitequark.org/bitcoin-wizards/2019-11-28
/dev/fd0 floppy disk guy
On Mon, Mar 17, 2025, 7:03 PM Weikeng Chen <weikeng.chen@l2iterative•com> wrote:
Quoted text (24 lines)
> I am writing just to solicit people's opinions on whether CSFS should be > added to signet given that CTV + CSFS combination has recently received a > lot of support. Although CTV has already been on signet for a few years, > CSFS isn't. > > With CTV and CSFS being on the signet also allows part of the LNHANCE to > start experimenting, and it has been discussed that CSFS helps with BitVM > by replacing Winternitz signatures completely with a much lower potential > on-chain data availability overhead. This also allows applications relying > on CTV + CSFS to develop further. > > Thanks, > Weikeng > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups•com. > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/2584bf15-8e7f-4d89-8987-f41dd06b2824n%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/2584bf15-8e7f-4d89-8987-f41dd06b2824n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . >
Hi Weikeng,
CSFS is on signet. All the LNhance opcodes are on mutinynet. https://github.com/lnhance/mutinynet-bitcoin/tree/mutinynet-cat-ln-hance https://faucet.mutinynet.com/
[signet] signetchallenge=512102f7561d208dd9ae99bf497273e16f389bdbd6c4742ddb8e6b216e64fa2928ad8f51ae addnode=45.79.52.207:38333 dnsseed=0 signetblocktime=30
BR, moonsettler
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
On Monday, March 17th, 2025 at 4:38 AM, Weikeng Chen <weikeng.chen@l2iterative•com> wrote:
Quoted text (10 lines)
> I am writing just to solicit people's opinions on whether CSFS should be added to signet given that CTV + CSFS combination has recently received a lot of support. Although CTV has already been on signet for a few years, CSFS isn't. > With CTV and CSFS being on the signet also allows part of the LNHANCE to start experimenting, and it has been discussed that CSFS helps with BitVM by replacing Winternitz signatures completely with a much lower potential on-chain data availability overhead. This also allows applications relying on CTV + CSFS to develop further. > > Thanks, > Weikeng > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups•com. > To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/2584bf15-8e7f-4d89-8987-f41dd06b2824n%40googlegroups.com.
Moonsettler,
I can see that LNHANCE has already had a live "mutinynet" working as a functional network for testing. Do you think it is still necessary to add it to the "signet" signet or just wait until more progress with CTV + CSFS on the bitcoin/bitcoin repository as PRs and then to testnet?
Thanks, Weikeng
On Tuesday, March 18, 2025 at 7:12:09 AM UTC+8 moonsettler wrote:
Quoted text (44 lines)
> Hi Weikeng, > > CSFS is on signet. All the LNhance opcodes are on mutinynet. > https://github.com/lnhance/mutinynet-bitcoin/tree/mutinynet-cat-ln-hance > https://faucet.mutinynet.com/ > > [signet] > > signetchallenge=512102f7561d208dd9ae99bf497273e16f389bdbd6c4742ddb8e6b216e64fa2928ad8f51ae > addnode=45.79.52.207:38333 > dnsseed=0 > signetblocktime=30 > > BR, > moonsettler > > > Sent with Proton Mail secure email. > > On Monday, March 17th, 2025 at 4:38 AM, Weikeng Chen < > weiken...@l2iterative•com> wrote: > > > I am writing just to solicit people's opinions on whether CSFS should be > added to signet given that CTV + CSFS combination has recently received a > lot of support. Although CTV has already been on signet for a few years, > CSFS isn't. > > With CTV and CSFS being on the signet also allows part of the LNHANCE to > start experimenting, and it has been discussed that CSFS helps with BitVM > by replacing Winternitz signatures completely with a much lower potential > on-chain data availability overhead. This also allows applications relying > on CTV + CSFS to develop further. > > > > Thanks, > > Weikeng > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an email to bitcoindev+...@googlegroups•com. > > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/2584bf15-8e7f-4d89-8987-f41dd06b2824n%40googlegroups.com > . >
Hi Weikeng,
I'm obviously not opposed to the idea, just not sure what makes one signet more significant than an other? The important thing is, there is a signet up and running for protocol devs to test things out on and for people to use as playground.
Now activating LNhance on a testnet would be more fun.
BR, moonsettler
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
On Tuesday, March 18th, 2025 at 7:55 AM, Weikeng Chen <weikeng.chen@l2iterative•com> wrote:
Quoted text (43 lines)
> Moonsettler, > I can see that LNHANCE has already had a live "mutinynet" working as a functional network for testing. > Do you think it is still necessary to add it to the "signet" signet or just wait until more progress with CTV + CSFS on the bitcoin/bitcoin repository as PRs and then to testnet? > > Thanks, > Weikeng > On Tuesday, March 18, 2025 at 7:12:09 AM UTC+8 moonsettler wrote: > > > Hi Weikeng, > > > > CSFS is on signet. All the LNhance opcodes are on mutinynet. > > https://github.com/lnhance/mutinynet-bitcoin/tree/mutinynet-cat-ln-hance > > https://faucet.mutinynet.com/ > > > > [signet] > > signetchallenge=512102f7561d208dd9ae99bf497273e16f389bdbd6c4742ddb8e6b216e64fa2928ad8f51ae > > addnode=45.79.52.207:38333 > > dnsseed=0 > > signetblocktime=30 > > > > BR, > > moonsettler > > > > > > Sent with Proton Mail secure email. > > > > On Monday, March 17th, 2025 at 4:38 AM, Weikeng Chen <weiken...@l2iterative•com> wrote: > > > > > I am writing just to solicit people's opinions on whether CSFS should be added to signet given that CTV + CSFS combination has recently received a lot of support. Although CTV has already been on signet for a few years, CSFS isn't. > > > With CTV and CSFS being on the signet also allows part of the LNHANCE to start experimenting, and it has been discussed that CSFS helps with BitVM by replacing Winternitz signatures completely with a much lower potential on-chain data availability overhead. This also allows applications relying on CTV + CSFS to develop further. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Weikeng > > > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+...@googlegroups•com. > > > To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/2584bf15-8e7f-4d89-8987-f41dd06b2824n%40googlegroups.com. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups•com. > To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/5f34bdb6-8088-4501-8116-99e2f182b929n%40googlegroups.com.
Noting that from my quick glance that the CSFS implemented in mutinynet is not BIP348 compliant. How much that matters for experimenters, I am not sure.
I opened a PR to inquisition to rectify the lack of BIP348-compatible PRs, at a minimum.
Greg On Monday, March 17, 2025 at 12:02:52 PM UTC-4 /dev /fd0 wrote:
Quoted text (45 lines)
> Hi Weikeng, > > I agree that it has a lot of support among bitcoin developers. No > objections for CSFS on [wiki][0]with evaluations from more than 50 bitcoin > developers. > > Co-author of APO, Christian Decker has also expressed his support for it > on [twitter][1]. Even Greg Maxwell considers it [useful][2]. > > [0]: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Covenants_support > [1]: https://x.com/Snyke/status/1895880013796556818 > [2]: https://freenode.irclog.whitequark.org/bitcoin-wizards/2019-11-28 > > /dev/fd0 > floppy disk guy > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025, 7:03 PM Weikeng Chen <weiken...@l2iterative•com> > wrote: > >> I am writing just to solicit people's opinions on whether CSFS should be >> added to signet given that CTV + CSFS combination has recently received a >> lot of support. Although CTV has already been on signet for a few years, >> CSFS isn't. >> >> With CTV and CSFS being on the signet also allows part of the LNHANCE to >> start experimenting, and it has been discussed that CSFS helps with BitVM >> by replacing Winternitz signatures completely with a much lower potential >> on-chain data availability overhead. This also allows applications relying >> on CTV + CSFS to develop further. >> >> Thanks, >> Weikeng >> >> -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to bitcoindev+...@googlegroups•com. >> To view this discussion visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/2584bf15-8e7f-4d89-8987-f41dd06b2824n%40googlegroups.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/2584bf15-8e7f-4d89-8987-f41dd06b2824n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >
Hi Greg,
Quoted text (1 line)
> Noting that from my quick glance that the CSFS implemented in mutinynet is not BIP348 compliant.
Wdym not compliant? Because it also has CSFSV?
BR, moonsetler
On Monday, March 24th, 2025 at 2:29 AM, Greg Sanders <gsanders87@gmail•com> wrote:
Quoted text (37 lines)
> Noting that from my quick glance that the CSFS implemented in mutinynet is not BIP348 compliant. How much that matters for experimenters, I am not sure. > I opened a PR to inquisition to rectify the lack of BIP348-compatible PRs, at a minimum. > > Greg > On Monday, March 17, 2025 at 12:02:52 PM UTC-4 /dev /fd0 wrote: > > > Hi Weikeng, > > I agree that it has a lot of support among bitcoin developers. No objections for CSFS on [wiki][0]with evaluations from more than 50 bitcoin developers. > > > > Co-author of APO, Christian Decker has also expressed his support for it on [twitter][1]. Even Greg Maxwell considers it [useful][2]. > > > > [0]: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Covenants_support > > [1]: https://x.com/Snyke/status/1895880013796556818 > > [2]: https://freenode.irclog.whitequark.org/bitcoin-wizards/2019-11-28 > > > > /dev/fd0 > > floppy disk guy > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025, 7:03 PM Weikeng Chen <weiken...@l2iterative•com> wrote: > > > > > I am writing just to solicit people's opinions on whether CSFS should be added to signet given that CTV + CSFS combination has recently received a lot of support. Although CTV has already been on signet for a few years, CSFS isn't. > > > With CTV and CSFS being on the signet also allows part of the LNHANCE to start experimenting, and it has been discussed that CSFS helps with BitVM by replacing Winternitz signatures completely with a much lower potential on-chain data availability overhead. This also allows applications relying on CTV + CSFS to develop further. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Weikeng > > > > > -- > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+...@googlegroups•com. > > > To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/2584bf15-8e7f-4d89-8987-f41dd06b2824n%40googlegroups.com. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups•com. > To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/cfaa1df8-44bb-4d1a-9e3b-3f390421a23cn%40googlegroups.com.
Correct.
On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 7:54 AM moonsettler <moonsettler@protonmail•com> wrote:
Quoted text (72 lines)
> Hi Greg, > > > Noting that from my quick glance that the CSFS implemented in mutinynet > is not BIP348 compliant. > Wdym not compliant? Because it also has CSFSV? > > BR, > moonsetler > > On Monday, March 24th, 2025 at 2:29 AM, Greg Sanders <gsanders87@gmail•com> > wrote: > > > Noting that from my quick glance that the CSFS implemented in mutinynet > is not BIP348 compliant. How much that matters for experimenters, I am not > sure. > > I opened a PR to inquisition to rectify the lack of BIP348-compatible > PRs, at a minimum. > > > > Greg > > On Monday, March 17, 2025 at 12:02:52 PM UTC-4 /dev /fd0 wrote: > > > > > Hi Weikeng, > > > I agree that it has a lot of support among bitcoin developers. No > objections for CSFS on [wiki][0]with evaluations from more than 50 bitcoin > developers. > > > > > > Co-author of APO, Christian Decker has also expressed his support for > it on [twitter][1]. Even Greg Maxwell considers it [useful][2]. > > > > > > [0]: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Covenants_support > > > [1]: https://x.com/Snyke/status/1895880013796556818 > > > [2]: https://freenode.irclog.whitequark.org/bitcoin-wizards/2019-11-28 > > > > > > /dev/fd0 > > > floppy disk guy > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025, 7:03 PM Weikeng Chen <weiken...@l2iterative•com> > wrote: > > > > > > > I am writing just to solicit people's opinions on whether CSFS > should be added to signet given that CTV + CSFS combination has recently > received a lot of support. Although CTV has already been on signet for a > few years, CSFS isn't. > > > > With CTV and CSFS being on the signet also allows part of the > LNHANCE to start experimenting, and it has been discussed that CSFS helps > with BitVM by replacing Winternitz signatures completely with a much lower > potential on-chain data availability overhead. This also allows > applications relying on CTV + CSFS to develop further. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Weikeng > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, > send an email to bitcoindev+...@googlegroups•com. > > > > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/2584bf15-8e7f-4d89-8987-f41dd06b2824n%40googlegroups.com > . > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups•com. > > To view this discussion visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/cfaa1df8-44bb-4d1a-9e3b-3f390421a23cn%40googlegroups.com > . >