Just design space. But i think this graph over state the VAULT risk
Discussion
Thanks!
VAULT carries a script segment forward across transactions, that's a pretty big risk. According to Rearden:
> Both CCV and VAULT give rise to hashrate escrow type recursive contracts, which may be a reason to be cautious about adding them to bitcoin script.
Risk to who? The user is voluntarily locking his coins on his script.
All recursive covenants are like that, the risks are MEV related mostly, otherwise we may as well just do CAT and say fuck incentives.
so I understand correctly, the risk is locking your coins into an experimental vault that can never spit out your coins or eats the whole stack in fees to unwind ?
Shouldn't people use tested and reliable vaults ?
No the risk is that it enables drivechains. It was such a bold claim I didn't want to make it myself but Rearden confirmed what I suspected. Shinobi thinks so too.
Ok, and again, sorry to ask, but you're actually being helpful (and it's appreciated).
If I recall correctly drivechains are bad because they are insecure vis a vis the miners ?
That's part of it, the trust model with drivechains is basically that 51% of miners can steal coins from the drivechains. But this is an opt-in risk so I don't mind it so much (doesn't affect non-drivechain users)
The other part, that I worry more about, is that drivechains can end up becoming shitty block size increases. The problem is if the drivechain is important and successful, the miner may end up incentivized to monitor the drivechain, which gives big miners with more resources a financial advantage, this contributes (an undefined amount) to mining centralization, which is the enemy of bitcoin's continued survival.
Is it a big enough problem that we should block all proposals that enable it? I dunno, but I'm not willing to bet bitcoin's future that we know the answer, any time soon.
Whereas there are several very safe and well understood upgrades (like CTV) that don't introduce risks like this.