Mention explicitly that CTV does not commit to inputs

[OrfeasLitos]

No description provided.

[luke-jr]

@JeremyRubin

[JeremyRubin]

Leaning towards nack, there's an infinitude of things not committed to, it's better to read the spec of what is comitted.

…

On Mon, Jul 17, 2023, 8:40 PM Luke Dashjr ***@***.***> wrote: @JeremyRubin <https://github.com/JeremyRubin> — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1475 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAGYN63VLF6X3WU6B2TIEFDXQXLOXANCNFSM6AAAAAA2FD66ME> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[OrfeasLitos]

CTV is a template (as opposed to a full specification) precisely because it doesn't commit to the inputs. Input omission is one of the central design drivers of CTV, IIUC.

This change adds crucial intermediate-level intuition, which now the reader can only glean by a tedious process of elimination.

[JeremyRubin]

The BIP currently has this text:

The set of data committed to is a superset of data which can impact the TXID of the transaction, other than the inputs.

[OrfeasLitos]

It's tucked away halfway through the document though, after the specification. Also IMO this particular phrasing and the surrounding text does not highlight enough why leaving inputs out is one of the keys to CTV.

If there is an intention for the BIP to be readable by folks with less than full Bitcoin expertise, this central design choice should be mentioned together with other central design decisions, early on and clearly, not relegated with other implementation details.

I believe that making this technical document more accessible to a wider audience with little touches like the one proposed here will attract more supporters and help to expedite CTV adoption.

[JeremyRubin]

I'll defer this decision to the editing team, I don't really know who or what audience bips are ultimately for. The change at least seems accurate to me

…

On Thu, Jul 27, 2023, 5:44 AM Orfeas Stefanos Thyfronitis Litos < ***@***.***> wrote: It's tucked away halfway through the document though, after the specification. Also IMO this particular phrasing and the surrounding text does not highlight enough why leaving inputs out is one of the keys to CTV. If there is an intention for the BIP to be readable by folks with less than full Bitcoin expertise, this central design choice should be mentioned together with other central design decisions, early on and clearly, not relegated with other implementation details. I believe that making this technical document more accessible to a wider audience with little touches like the one proposed here will attract more supporters and help to expedite CTV adoption. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1475 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAGYN67ZSPK7F22ATADCDZDXSI2AHANCNFSM6AAAAAA2FD66ME> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[jonatack]

I agree with the BIP author, and more importantly, I doubt that an editor would merge this when the author is reluctant. Thank you for your suggestion, but let's not spend further time here.