As far as I'm concerned CTV and TXHASH are functionally equivalent. The difference is really TXHASH is trying to specify all possible behavior ahead of time but disables it for now, and CTV specifies one very specific, well understood behavior right now, but allows upgrades over time.
Preferring TXHASH over CTV basically means pushing back covenants at least 2 years, for no benefit that I can see, since CTV can always be upgraded to support new features.
Thank you for the insights! If you setup zaps you’re due a couple.
I’m looking forward to this eventual upgrade and subsequent functionality. UTXO sharing and vaults especially.
Will CTV enable Lightning symmetry?
CTV alone doesn't enable lightning symmetry (as far as I know) but the proposed LNHANCE upgrade combines CTV, CSFS (checksigfromstack) and IK (innerkey) to enable lightning symmetry.
CTV as proposed, as far as I'm concerned carries essentially no risk. It's functionally equivalent to presigned transactions, slightly more space efficient, and without the risk of mishandling keys or key leakage.
Of these, I understand the implications of CSFS the least, so I'm not sure if there are any risks, people I trust somewhat say there's no risk. Still, I prefer to understand as much as my pea brain allows. Regardless, I believe it's necessary to enable ln-symmetry with CTV.
IK is nothing but a very neat little space optimization for taproot, so it has no risks that I'm aware of.
